Toronto Woman Sues Rogers For Exposing Affair

[Prototype]

You can request to have someone else have access to your account, and for them to make changes. That's common.

But why would you maintain a seperate account under your maiden name, use it for infidelity, but give your husband access to the account. Doesn't make sense. It's possible, but it doesn't quite add up.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

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.

I just want to explain how this stuff gets into the media and where all these $600,000 numbers come from...
In 99.9% of these cases neither the lawyers nor the clients would go to the media. But you have to file a lawsuit within 2 years of the "date of loss" or your claim dies. So, as a matter of routine, a lawsuit gets filed. The numbers in the lawsuit have no real connection to reality - they are just meant to be big enough to cover the highest possible extent of the claim. I always sue for $100,000 (or more, if warranted) - it's just a number. One of the reasons to keep numbers big is to avoid falling under the "expedited procedure" rules.
How this stuff gets into the media is this... The Toronto Star would have a Court beat reporter. The filed Statements of Claim are public documents. The reporter probably has a contact among the clerks who tips him off when something interesting gets filed (an unusual case, celebrities, etc). Hence, you get headlines like "Home-builder sues Jarome Iginla for $2,000,000".

[troutman]

Originally Posted by valo403

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.

I think it is somewhat an alienation of affection claim disguised as an invasion of privacy/breach of contract claim. How else can she justify $600,000.00 in damages? She is blaming Rogers for the break-up of her marriage.

In a statement of defence, Rogers denies it terminated the contract and says the company "cannot be held responsible for the condition of the marriage, for the plaintiff's affair and consequential marriage break-up, nor the effects the break-up has had on her.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Prototype

But why would you maintain a seperate account under your maiden name, use it for infidelity, but give your husband access to the account. Doesn't make sense. It's possible, but it doesn't quite add up.

The account could have been set up before the marriage even happened (hence being under the maiden name) and long before she decided to sleep around. In those early stages she may very well have given her fiancee authorization to make changes on the account. Post-marriage they never bothered to change/merge the account because... what's the point? Cell phone's still working fine; it's too much hassle. Certainly doesn't sound unreasonable. She forgets and thinks her bills are only available to her, fast forward a couple years and she gets burned pretty badly for it.

On the other hand, if she deliberately set up this account after the marriage happened with the intention of cheating... Could she actually enter into a contract with a name that was no longer her legal name?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by troutman

I think it is somewhat an alienation of affection claim disguised as an invasion of privacy/breach of contract claim. How else can she justify $600,000.00 in damages? She is blaming Rogers for the break-up of her marriage.

In a statement of defence, Rogers denies it terminated the contract and says the company "cannot be held responsible for the condition of the marriage, for the plaintiff's affair and consequential marriage break-up, nor the effects the break-up has had on her.

She can justify (although it's obviously a large stretch) based on the fallout of the breach of privacy. The breach caused x, which caused y etc. It's tangential, but not all that different to what you'd see in any claim where emotional distress is involved. There's also likely a fairly significant exageration taking place, as Vlad pointed out that's the norm. The goal is likely a settlement, best to aim high in that situation.

I see the blaming of Rogers for the break-up of the marriage as a damage issue, not an aspect of the claim. At least that's how I'd frame it, arguing it as alienation of affections seems like a good way to face sanctions for bringing a claim clearly not recognized.

[Superflyer]

n\m

[Jetsfan]

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 this part...

Q: Did you not breach a marital contract with your spouse before Rogers breached their contract with you?

A: I don't know how to answer that because the bottom line is they were negligent in protecting people's private information. It's unacceptable for them to take it upon themselves [to disclose my personal information]. There is no such excuse as an error because you have to sign a document and you expect them to be protective of personal information. My personal information is my life.


She totally doesn't get it.....

[Prototype]

The marriage and the cell phone bill are two seperate topics in the same screwed up story. I don't see how people aren't getting that.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Prototype

The marriage and the cell phone bill are two seperate topics in the same screwed up story. I don't see how people aren't getting that.

I bet if you could call the contract a whore a lot more people would be paying attention to it.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by valo403

I bet if you could call the contract a whore a lot more people would be paying attention to it.

What about rogers? Don't let that bunch of whores of the hook.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Jetsfan

I love this part...

Q: Did you not breach a marital contract with your spouse before Rogers breached their contract with you?

A: I don't know how to answer that because the bottom line is they were negligent in protecting people's private information. It's unacceptable for them to take it upon themselves [to disclose my personal information]. There is no such excuse as an error because you have to sign a document and you expect them to be protective of personal information. My personal information is my life.


She totally doesn't get it.....

I'm not sure I should bother addressing you, since you are CP's local woman hater, but IMO, it's YOU that doesn't get it... See below VV

Originally Posted by Prototype

The marriage and the cell phone bill are two seperate topics in the same screwed up story. I don't see how people aren't getting that.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I just want to explain how this stuff gets into the media and where all these $600,000 numbers come from...
In 99.9% of these cases neither the lawyers nor the clients would go to the media. But you have to file a lawsuit within 2 years of the "date of loss" or your claim dies. So, as a matter of routine, a lawsuit gets filed. The numbers in the lawsuit have no real connection to reality - they are just meant to be big enough to cover the highest possible extent of the claim. I always sue for $100,000 (or more, if warranted) - it's just a number. One of the reasons to keep numbers big is to avoid falling under the "expedited procedure" rules.
How this stuff gets into the media is this... The Toronto Star would have a Court beat reporter. The filed Statements of Claim are public documents. The reporter probably has a contact among the clerks who tips him off when something interesting gets filed (an unusual case, celebrities, etc). Hence, you get headlines like "Home-builder sues Jarome Iginla for $2,000,000".

I like the "whore wants get rich" version better.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I always sue for $100,000 (or more, if warranted) - it's just a number. One of the reasons to keep numbers big is to avoid falling under the "expedited procedure" rules.

I knew it was you that filed suit against Aaliyah Braybrook.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Jetsfan

I love this part...

Q: Did you not breach a marital contract with your spouse before Rogers breached their contract with you?

A: I don't know how to answer that because the bottom line is they were negligent in protecting people's private information. It's unacceptable for them to take it upon themselves [to disclose my personal information]. There is no such excuse as an error because you have to sign a document and you expect them to be protective of personal information. My personal information is my life.


She totally doesn't get it.....

That question has two connotations. The first, and the one that Jetsfan and others seems to be picking up on, is that the breach of the contract with Rogers doesn't matter because the marital contract was breached first. Those are two separate issues but the timing of those breaches could go towards a determination of damages. Was it foreseeable that the plaintiff's marriage would go down the crapper by consolidating the bills? Did the alleged breach of privacy materially contribute to her losses? [aside: for a great discussion about the state of causation in Canada, check out this post at the U of A Faculty of Law Blog: http://ualbertalaw.typepad.com/facul...uroboros.html]

The second connotation, I think, is that while the interviewer is not entirely clear he or she could be implying that it's rather duplicitous and does not lie in the plaintiff's mouth to complain of a breach of contract herself having just committed a different but more serious breach of contract with her family. There's that old maxim in equity that equity must come with clean hands. In the court of public opinion, the plaintiff's hands are as dirty as they come notwithstanding she is guilty of no wrongdoing or unethical behavior if you look solely at the Rogers contract issue.

[The Ditch]

I feel bad for the husband.

[Jetsfan]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I'm not sure I should bother addressing you, since you are CP's local woman hater, but IMO, it's YOU that doesn't get it... See below VV

[Yeah_Baby]

God forbid that people be treated equally.

[zuluking]

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

Does not help herself.

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

I feel bad for the husband.

I don't. He's better off AND gets a hilarious breakup story.

[The Ditch]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

I don't. He's better off AND gets a hilarious breakup story.

Well they have children, I'm sure he's going to be paying child support, also lose whatever in the divorce settlement. He wasted who knows how many years of his life on someone who obviously didn't respect him.

But, I guess the story on how he found out is a decent bar story.