At first, just on the case that Rogers breached privacy, you'd think they'd lose. However, don't most suits like this work on the premise that the accuser has to prove that she tried to mitigate the "damages" through something like councelling? Or did she just go to work, cry in her coffee, go to lunch, come back, cry, rinse and repeat for 30 days? I just don't get it. While I certainly agree that Rogers seems to have breached her right to privacy, it's quite evident she did nothing to help herself. While the US is all about the benjamins, and they'd probably award her some decent money, this isn't the US and I'm not sure lawsuits like this are awarded much in Canada. This lady's lawsuit seems to represent a classic case of the slippery slope fallacy, but not necessarily from Rogers' wrongdoing, but more from this lady's stupidness. Rogers' reputation is on the line, and I wouldn't be surprised if they fight this to the end and smear this lady all they can. I can't imagine she'll be paid more the $50k at best.
|