Two gamblers are suing BC Lottery Corp. for refusing to hand over more than $77,000 they won in jackpots after signing up for the company's self-exclusion program.
Michael Lee and Hamidreza Haghdust were denied about $42,000 and $35,000, respectively because the BCLC claims they were gambling illegally.
Both men signed up for the voluntary self-exclusion program, which prohibits potential problem gamblers from entering a casino and placing bets.
But Lee and Haghdust say they were able to lose considerable sums of money undisturbed by casino staff while pursuing their jackpots. They argue the VSE program amounts to an unfair policy of "if you lose, you lose -- and if you win, you lose, too."
Their lawyer, Mark Mounteer, believes there are at least 100 more people in the province who have been denied millions in combined winnings.
He is applying to have the case certified as a class action, and said VSE participants will likely be contacted next year if he's successful.
"All of the members have signed the agreement, so their names and addresses are known. When somebody's denied a jackpot there's paperwork behind that as well. Everybody will be contacted," Mounteer said.
The BCLC tried to have Lee and Haghdust's case thrown out of court, but their application was dismissed in a decision posted Thursday by B.C. Supreme Court Justice John Savage.
The Crown gaming corporation argued that Lee and Haghdust are not entitled to their winnings because of a January 2009 clause in the self-exclusion agreement that forbids gamblers from collecting.
"I agree that if I lose the game, BCLC will retain the bet. If I win the game, and BCLC determines that I was playing while self-excluded, BCLC agrees to pay the prize money to a third party instead of me," the agreement states.
But the plaintiffs say they signed the agreement before the clause was introduced, and it should not be made retroactive.
Savage agreed, ruling that at the time they enrolled there was "nothing in the VSE form or any other document" indicating they would forfeit "any winnings won as a result of gambling during the period of self-exclusion."
The BCLC also argues the gamblers were inside the casino illegally, and they therefore are not entitled to their winnings under the Gaming Control Act. The plaintiffs claim the program itself conflicts with the act, and is therefore unenforceable.
The BCLC came under fire earlier this year after a study suggested it wasn't doing enough to bar self-exclusion participants from gambling facilities.
The BC Centre for Social Responsibility research found about a third of participants were able to enter casinos unnoticed. The corporation promised in August to improve its detection systems.
