Toronto Woman Sues Rogers For Exposing Affair

[Prototype]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I don't think this is unreasonable at all.

In that case, I'll call one of your places of billing. Get all your information. Change everything to the highest price billing for you. Stop by your house, and egg it, and rack up your credit cards on file (or ones that I could possibly create with the information that you don't think should be held private). Then I'll ask you if you still think adjusting and getting information from someone elses account is unreasonable.

PS - I'm not actually going to do all that.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Prototype

In that case, I'll call one of your places of billing. Get all your information. Change everything to the highest price billing for you. Stop by your house, and egg it, and rack up your credit cards on file (or ones that I could possibly create with the information that you don't think should be held private). Then I'll ask you if you still think adjusting and getting information from someone elses account is unreasonable.

PS - I'm not actually going to do all that.

Do you really believe what you just said is an accurate hyperbolic portrayal of what actually happened in this case?

I'm going to save you the shame of picking one line in a post out of context and actually respond to you rather than dropping a one liner of my own.

If you knew my full name, my address, my postal code, my birthday, my mother's maiden name, my kindergarten, you could obtain my voicemail password too. All of these things would probably be known by a husband or wife. What's Rogers going to do if you answer all of the identification questions right?

I also gave an example and there have been several in this thread, where a person that isn't the account holder has made minor changes to the account without major issue. Again, I don't think it is unreasonable in a husband/wife situation for an account change like this (consolidation of bills for extra discounts) to be made with the authorization of only one member of the household.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Do you really believe what you just said is an accurate hyperbolic portrayal of what actually happened in this case?

I'm going to save you the shame of picking one line in a post out of context and actually respond to you rather than dropping a one liner of my own.

If you knew my full name, my address, my postal code, my birthday, my mother's maiden name, my kindergarten, you could obtain my voicemail password too. All of these things would probably be known by a husband or wife. What's Rogers going to do if you answer all of the identification questions right?

I also gave an example and there have been several in this thread, where a person that isn't the account holder has made minor changes to the account without major issue. Again, I don't think it is unreasonable in a husband/wife situation for an account change like this (consolidation of bills for extra discounts) to be made with the authorization of only one member of the household.

The cell account was held personally, it's not a household item to be bundled. Just because the bills goes to the same address doesn't mean that Rogers is justified in bundling them, and the information they contain, together.

[troutman]

Can people sue ashleymadison.com for breaking up their marriages?

[Bertuzzied]

Too bad this wasn't Bell. Then i would cheer for the tramp to win.

[troutman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_affection

At common law, alienation of affections is a tort action brought by a deserted spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for the failure of the marriage. The defendant in an alienation of affections suit is typically an adulterous spouse's lover, although family members, counselors and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections.

Alienation of affections was first codified as a tort by the New York state legislature in 1864, and similar legislation existed in many U.S. states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Since 1935, this tort has been abolished in 42 states. Alienation is, however, still recognized in Hawaii, Illinois, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah.[1][2]

http://www.worldlawdirect.com/articl...law-suits.html

To succeed on an alienation claim, the plaintiff often must show that (1) the marriage entailed love between the spouses in some degree; (2) the spousal love was alienated and destroyed; and (3) defendant’s malicious conduct contributed to or caused the loss of affection. It is often not necessary to show that the defendant set out to destroy the marital relationship, but only that he or she intentionally engaged in acts that likely would impact the marriage.

[KTown]

Originally Posted by fredr123

The National Post does a Q & A with Gabriella Nagy, the woman who filed the lawsuit: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=3039965

I love how she says Rogers breached the contract between them so she's sueing for the $600,000. Too bad her husband can't turn around and sue her for that $600,000 for her breaching there marriage contract.

That would be classic.

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by troutman

Can people sue ashleymadison.com for breaking up their marriages?

Well, if ashleymadison contacts the spouse they are cheating on because they can save 5% on their credit card bill then maybe.

[Prototype]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Again, I don't think it is unreasonable in a husband/wife situation for an account change like this (consolidation of bills for extra discounts) to be made with the authorization of only one member of the household.

There is no 'grey' area when it comes to Privacy. That's not my opinion, that's the rules of Canada's Privacy Act.

To change something small on someone elses account without their permission goes against the rules that protects us from my possibly over the top examples.

And from my understanding, there was no request to consolidate the statements. Regardless to the outside situation of infidelity, someone at Rogers broke the Privacy Act.

I know that statements will be consolidated if the phones are registered under one account. I understand this to be two different accounts, under two different names.

My point is that I don't agree with changes to someone elses account to be 'unreasonable', no matter how minor or major they are, and no matter the relationship or household status. There are rules, and the rules were broken, and by calling a billing company to talk about someone elses account, you are breaking those rules.

In response to your situation of answering all the questions like Madien Name, Dog's Name, Credit Card number... etc... If I'm asking someone if their name is Gabriella, and I hear a man's voice say "Yes I am"... I'm getting suspicious. Just saying.

[Bertuzzied]

I highly doubt she has learned her lesson on lying. From that interview.

Q: What cellphone provider are you with now?
A: Right now I'm with Bell, and they're amazing. Wonderful.

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

I highly doubt she has learned her lesson on lying. From that interview.

Q: What cellphone provider are you with now?
A: Right now I'm with Bell, and they're amazing. Wonderful.

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed 100%

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_affection

At common law, alienation of affections is a tort action brought by a deserted spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for the failure of the marriage. The defendant in an alienation of affections suit is typically an adulterous spouse's lover, although family members, counselors and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections.

Alienation of affections was first codified as a tort by the New York state legislature in 1864, and similar legislation existed in many U.S. states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Since 1935, this tort has been abolished in 42 states. Alienation is, however, still recognized in Hawaii, Illinois, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah.[1][2]

http://www.worldlawdirect.com/articl...law-suits.html

To succeed on an alienation claim, the plaintiff often must show that (1) the marriage entailed love between the spouses in some degree; (2) the spousal love was alienated and destroyed; and (3) defendant’s malicious conduct contributed to or caused the loss of affection. It is often not necessary to show that the defendant set out to destroy the marital relationship, but only that he or she intentionally engaged in acts that likely would impact the marriage.

Kungl v. Schiefer, [1962] S.C.R. 443rejected alienation of affections as a separate tort in Ontario.

[Yeah_Baby]

Shouldn't Facebook be suing Rogers? I mean don't they own everyone's privacy by now?

[Inferno099]

I guess it is all perspective & what people want to hide in their relationships.... I would expect my wife to open the mail is she so desires even if it is 'my name' - we treat our bills, our mail - as OUR mail.

If the person who got to her mail was not her husband then I'd say she had a point.... being that it is/was her spouse - this is a waste of courts time & public tax dollars if this actually goes to court.

My view is that she should have divorced the husband if that is what she wanted rather than trying to blame a corporation for her actions that led to her husband discovering her affair.

/rant

Originally Posted by worth

She does have a point. If she had a phone bill in her own name and then Rogers bundled them together and the husband opened it, that's kind of a problem.

(Ir)Regardless, blaming Rogers for what they have done to her is just ######ed. I really hate people that can't own up to their own mistakes or take responsibility for themselves.

Rogers did nothing to you lady. You did it to yourself. Rogers didn't make you have an affair. Rogers didn't force you to call your mystery man for hours at a time. All they did was bundle your invoice together when your "husband" added internet to the house. Take some responsibility for yourself. Or use a payphone.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Inferno099

I guess it is all perspective & what people want to hide in their relationships.... I would expect my wife to open the mail is she so desires even if it is 'my name' - we treat our bills, our mail - as OUR mail.

If the person who got to her mail was not her husband then I'd say she had a point.... being that it is/was her spouse - this is a waste of courts time & public tax dollars if this actually goes to court.

My view is that she should have divorced the husband if that is what she wanted rather than trying to blame a corporation for her actions that led to her husband discovering her affair.

/rant

I assume you made that decision, as opposed to a corporation deciding they would do it for you, correct? That's the whole point, it's your decision who has access to your personal information.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_affection

At common law, alienation of affections is a tort action brought by a deserted spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for the failure of the marriage. The defendant in an alienation of affections suit is typically an adulterous spouse's lover, although family members, counselors and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections.

Alienation of affections was first codified as a tort by the New York state legislature in 1864, and similar legislation existed in many U.S. states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Since 1935, this tort has been abolished in 42 states. Alienation is, however, still recognized in Hawaii, Illinois, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah.[1][2]

http://www.worldlawdirect.com/articl...law-suits.html

To succeed on an alienation claim, the plaintiff often must show that (1) the marriage entailed love between the spouses in some degree; (2) the spousal love was alienated and destroyed; and (3) defendant’s malicious conduct contributed to or caused the loss of affection. It is often not necessary to show that the defendant set out to destroy the marital relationship, but only that he or she intentionally engaged in acts that likely would impact the marriage.

I'm no lawyer, and I realize you are, so wouldn't that be the key to this suit? It seems to me that this suit doesn't meet that standard. Did they intentionally change the billing circumstances? Sure. Is this an example of something that is likely to impact the marriage? Not likely. Sure there is a small chance that it could impact the marriage, but under the vast majority of circumstances, it wouldn't.

If that is an example of something that is likely to impact a marriage, then wouldn't it be possible to sue anyone who say introduced a cheating spouse to the person their cheating with? As withouth that introduction the person wouldn't have cheated with that person?

Also this law seems like it's a way for the person being cheated on to seek damages, not for the cheating person who got caught to seek damages. I'd be interested to know if it's ever been used by the cheating person.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by troutman

Can people sue ashleymadison.com for breaking up their marriages?

Tortious interference?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'm no lawyer, and I realize you are, so wouldn't that be the key to this suit? It seems to me that this suit doesn't meet that standard. Did they intentionally change the billing circumstances? Sure. Is this an example of something that is likely to impact the marriage? Not likely. Sure there is a small chance that it could impact the marriage, but under the vast majority of circumstances, it wouldn't.

If that is an example of something that is likely to impact a marriage, then wouldn't it be possible to sue anyone who say introduced a cheating spouse to the person their cheating with? As withouth that introduction the person wouldn't have cheated with that person?

Also this law seems like it's a way for the person being cheated on to seek damages, not for the cheating person who got caught to seek damages. I'd be interested to know if it's ever been used by the cheating person.

This isn't an alienation of affections claim, the claim doesn't even exist in Ontario, so none of this would be at issue here.

[Superflyer]

I am just thowing out an assumption here, but I know that for me to make a change to our shaw bill, that is in my wifes name, she had to be on the phone and say she gives me permission. That was 2-3 years ago and that is kept on record and never mentioned again.
Maybe a couple years ago this same thing happened where she gave him permission in a passing thought and forgot all about that. Maybe in the contract itself or over the phone when they were disputing a bill or something. Or maybe he added her to the family bills and they put two and two together.

The thing is Rogers will never say something like this outside court because they are smarter then to run to the media with stuff like this, so I am sure they have something up their sleeves or they would just settle out of court.

[Inferno099]

Originally Posted by valo403

I assume you made that decision, as opposed to a corporation deciding they would do it for you, correct? That's the whole point, it's your decision who has access to your personal information.

Correct - but through a newspaper article we are not getting all the facts, probably getting some invalid information & other perceived realities.

On the outside with this article it seems like it could be black & white... but all of us are just providing our opinions of what has been filtered to us through the articles & interviews....

Still I find it funny if anyone in a marriage doesn't expect their spouse to open mail addressed to one person..... but you are right that would be each couple's decision. If a room-mate was given access then my opinion would be completely opposite, but a husband & wife opening mail - my opinion / perspective will not change.

Our accounts are in my name mainly due to owning a home, having phone #, etc. before we even met & then we decided to continue to us the established accounts.

Although I do not care for Rogers; but whenever I've called they go through their security protocols for my cell phone...

Anyway each of us is going to have our opinions & we'll just banter back & forth - but I doubt whether any of us think she or Rogers is in the wrong - we won't change our opinions from the 5+ pages of posts on this topic.