Toronto Woman Sues Rogers For Exposing Affair

[Essembi]

For the lawyers out there how does Ontario not having a privacy act effect eveything here? Does it at all effect the plaintiff's odds of winning or losing if this case goes to trial?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Essembi

For the lawyers out there how does Ontario not having a privacy act effect eveything here? Does it at all effect the plaintiff's odds of winning or losing if this case goes to trial?

Absent legislation, you would look to their common law duty of care. I would say she had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that her private information would not be disclosed to third parties without her consent. I would say Rogers breached said duty, given the facts that were presented. What the damages are is a separate issue...

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by fotze

I guess this explains why me and the wife have a whore of a time getting things changed on accounts. Company's want to stay out of these messes.

Man-whore or a woman-whore?

[JustAnotherGuy]

Can we stop calling her a whore? She is just a stupid cheater.

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

Can we stop calling her a whore? She is just a stupid cheater.

Sorry. Did we offend you?

[DropIt]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Actually, as described in the story, she does have a point. In fact, I think she would win that lawsuit.

Two different names, one envelope to one household is a way to save money by Rogers.

However, it does breach confidentiality as they cannot know the two names are related without confirming with BOTH parties. They might be simply roommates or even enemies who like to keep each other close. How would Rogers know?

Rogers did not have her permission to consolidate or release information to the gentleman. They probably got a call from the gentleman and offered to consolidate things under one statement and did so on his say-so.

It's ridiculous for Roger's to say the marriage would have terminated for other reasons. They have no way of knowing that.

Basically, Roger's screwed up.

Morally we can think this woman slimy but she's going to win in law I think. As she should.

As a sidebar, I remember a story going around that an Edmonton Oiler in the late 1980's was exposed after a travel agent phoned his house to confirm details of his Hawaiian vacation for two . . . . . . except the wife didn't know anything about it.

Cowperson

Agreed
Rogers should probably lose this case, but the woman should probably get hit by a bus on the way to the courthouse

[Muta]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Wife: "You were ######ing her in Cuba and you're still ######ing her now! I saw your journal; it's all there and it's raw!"

Husband: "You wouldn't know about any of this if you weren't snooping in my stuff."

Wife: "..."

The way the husband uttered that response, as though it was the perfect defence to everything that he did, along with the way it left his soon-to-be-ex-wife speechless played out like a movie.

That happened with my ex-gf as well. She went through my texts, called me out on something because she interpreted something was going on (when there wasn't), and not only did I disprove her theory, I called her out on going through my phone, which is an invasion of privacy.

It was amusing to watch her stutter, hem and haw over it; of course, somehow everything was still my fault, including her going through my phone. Talk about insecurity issues.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

Sorry. Did we offend you?

Thanks for apologizing. No, you didn't offend me. It is called humour.

[CrusaderPi]

Really? YOU are making a joke? REALLY?

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

Really? YOU are making a joke? REALLY?

Yes, do I need to explain?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Actually, as described in the story, she does have a point. In fact, I think she would win that lawsuit.

Two different names, one envelope to one household is a way to save money by Rogers.

However, it does breach confidentiality as they cannot know the two names are related without confirming with BOTH parties. They might be simply roommates or even enemies who like to keep each other close. How would Rogers know?

Rogers did not have her permission to consolidate or release information to the gentleman. They probably got a call from the gentleman and offered to consolidate things under one statement and did so on his say-so.

It's ridiculous for Roger's to say the marriage would have terminated for other reasons. They have no way of knowing that.

Basically, Roger's screwed up.

Morally we can think this woman slimy but she's going to win in law I think. As she should.

As a sidebar, I remember a story going around that an Edmonton Oiler in the late 1980's was exposed after a travel agent phoned his house to confirm details of his Hawaiian vacation for two . . . . . . except the wife didn't know anything about it.

Cowperson

I can understand why it was probably done. As his wife she was probably listed on the main account as authorized to make changes to the account so the relationship has been established. Find what they think is just a remnant of an old account when she still had her maiden name and update it and consolidate it.

Normally this would probably be routine and welcome records maintenance and cleanup... that is if she wasn't sleeping around and an idiot about her ways of hiding it.

[Jetsfan]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crim...er-affair?bn=1

A Toronto woman says the billing practices of Rogers Wireless Inc. led to her husband discovering her extramarital affair.

Now the woman, whose husband walked out, is suing the communications giant for $600,000 for alleged invasion of privacy and breach of contract, the results of which she says have ruined her life.

Correction lady,

You've ruined your husband and your family's lives by cheating.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Absent legislation, you would look to their common law duty of care. I would say she had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that her private information would not be disclosed to third parties without her consent. I would say Rogers breached said duty, given the facts that were presented. What the damages are is a separate issue...

I'm no fancy lawyer, but would Rogers have a case if they argued that as a married woman she would have a lessend expectation of privacy?

I'd probably try to argue that, assuming all finances/expenses in the family are shared, that billing info could not be reasonably assumed to be confidential information. If the husband is footing half the bill, is he not entitled to see what he's paying for?

Like I said, I'm no lawyer, so I'd be interested in what one has to say about that.

That being said, if that wouldn't be a valid argument, I'd guess that Rogers will likely lose the case, but that the damages wouldn't be anywhere near $600,000. I'd like to think that a judge would impose some sort of penalty based on fines, etc that have been levied in cases where a breach of privacy occured, and leave out the $600k, as the fundamental cause of that was the actions of the lady.

[Prototype]

There's no such thing and expanded privacy. Ask any bank. Ask the government. This story has an unfortunate sub story of infidelity. People seem to look more so to the morality of the subject than the issue at hand. Rogers doesn't care if you're sleeping around, but they should care to pay the extra 20 cents of postage.

It's a stupid situation, but she has a leg to stand on. I don't know if it's her husbands or her 'on the side', and I don't care, but Rogers is in the wrong here.

[Table 5]

Great, in the end, this will probably lead to even more red tape when trying to do something on behalf of a family member/spouse with a corporation. As if it's not a big enough pain in the ass already.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Unrelated. Our neighbours a few houses down were having a big blow out in their driveway while I was raking our lawn. Plenty of f-bombs but the kicker was this exchange:

Wife: "You were ######ing her in Cuba and you're still ######ing her now! I saw your journal; it's all there and it's raw!"

Husband: "You wouldn't know about any of this if you weren't snooping in my stuff."

Wife: "..."

The way the husband uttered that response, as though it was the perfect defence to everything that he did, along with the way it left his soon-to-be-ex-wife speechless played out like a movie.

So, after she kicked him out and got the house did you drop in every once in a while and console her?

[RougeUnderoos]

"After she terminated her relationship with the “third party” in August 2007, the jilted lover, himself a married father of three, called Rogers and obtained her secret password to her voicemail and used it to access it to harass her and taunt the husband, the statement of claim alleges."

Isn't that the real rub here?Consolidating their bills is one thing, but forget about all the "moral issues", (and who needs a telecommunications companyto have any sort of insight into morality and honesty?), they gave her voicemail password to some stranger.At the very least, they should be paying for that trick.

[MrMastodonFarm]

I really hope their is a way she could sue Telus too, just for good measure.

[4X4]

Some of the posts in this thread are just dumb. Yeah, yeah, she's a cheating bitch that should be stoned to death in front of the village. That's beside the point. She had a contract between herself and Rogers for her own cell phone, in her maiden name. Why in blue hell would Rogers just add it to "the other bill" that gets sent to the same address, without her explicit permission? Trying to save a buck on an extra stamp and envelope?

How would any of you people who live with a roommate (or your parents) like it if Visa just threw both your bills in the same envelope? Or Revenue Canada? Some things are nobody's business except the person that is on the contract. That's her beef, and I totally agree with her.

Anyone here ever broken up with a psycho, or know someone that has, where the ex manages to get all kinds of things changed around because he or she knows personal info? Companies should be held responsible for your personal information. Too bad if it's difficult to do something on another person's behalf. And as far as when I call in to make changes to my service, I welcome the gauntlet of questions they ask to verify my identity. And nobody should be allowed to make changes to my account unless I have previously authorized it. That's what happened here, the husband had the bills bundled, and Rogers did not get permission from the wife. I'm not a litigious person, but I'd be a-ok with a precedent being set here.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

"After she terminated her relationship with the “third party” in August 2007, the jilted lover, himself a married father of three, called Rogers and obtained her secret password to her voicemail and used it to access it to harass her and taunt the husband, the statement of claim alleges."

Isn't that the real rub here?Consolidating their bills is one thing, but forget about all the "moral issues", (and who needs a telecommunications companyto have any sort of insight into morality and honesty?), they gave her voicemail password to some stranger.At the very least, they should be paying for that trick.

But how does one taunt the husband with only a voicemail password?

oooo, I'll get you now, watch me record a wicked voice greeting that someone will surely hear?