How a $120K Slot Jackpot Win Turned Into a Court Battle Between Exes

How a $120K Slot Jackpot Win Turned Into a Court Battle Between Exes
Image
Iva Dozet News Editor
Fact Checked: PokerListings
  • Updated: July 20, 2026
  • Read time: 2 min

Most couples going through a breakup end up arguing over mundane things: the house, the car, and probably the family pet. One Canadian couple found themselves fighting over something far less ordinary — a six-figure online slot jackpot.

The dispute eventually made its way to the British Columbia Supreme Court, where a judge had to decide whether the money belonged to the person spinning the reels or the person whose online casino account received the payout. The answer wasn’t quite as straightforward as either side had hoped.

From a Jackpot to a Lawsuit

The case revolves around Timothy Jones and Cheryl Johnson, two Canadians who were very much still in a relationship when an online slot session in April 2022 produced a jackpot worth more than C$120,000.

By the time the couple separated a few weeks later, most of the winnings remained in Johnson’s online casino account. Jones argued that he was the one who had funded the play by transferring money earlier that day and that he was the person who actually triggered the jackpot. On that basis, he sued his former partner for unjust enrichment, claiming more than C$112,000, the amount still left from the original payout.

Johnson painted a different picture. She testified that she — and not Jones — had deposited the money into the casino account, that the account belonged solely to her, and that she had already told Jones months earlier not to use it for gambling. Jones did not dispute the last part of her account.

Why the Judge Ruled Against Jones

Justice Ronald Tindale ultimately sided with Johnson, finding that the facts simply didn’t support Jones’ claim.

The court accepted Johnson’s evidence that she had deposited the $80 used for the gambling session and noted that Jones actually owed her money at the time. It also found that the online casino account, and the bank account linked to it—were both hers. In his decision, Tindale wrote:

Ronald Tindale

This is not a case where the casino winnings were paid by mistake to the defendant. It was the defendant’s casino account and it was the defendant’s money which was used to play the winning game.

The judge also dismissed Jones’ argument that his gambling “strategy” deserved recognition because it had brought the game to a bonus round.

Ronald Tindale

In my view, on a game of chance there can be no strategy which the plaintiff employed that resulted in the Casino Winnings beyond the fact that the plaintiff played the game.

Adding to Jones’ difficulties, the court heard evidence that Johnson’s teenage son had pressed some of the buttons during the bonus round, although Justice Tindale concluded that this ultimately made little difference to the outcome because the account and the funds used to play belonged to Johnson.

A Little More Than a Breakup

While the case was settled between exes, the actual ruling reinforces a principle that extends beyond this particular breakup.

The court found there was a clear legal basis for Johnson to retain the winnings because Jones had used her online casino account (and her funds) without permission. In other words, the dispute wasn’t simply about who happened to be sitting in front of the computer when the jackpot landed, but about whose account and money were legally behind the spin.