Cellphone cheater says Rogers bill outed her

[Solauren]

Yeah, the cheating had nothing to do with it...

By The Canadian Press

TORONTO - A Toronto mother who says her marriage fell apart because her Rogers cellphone bill exposed her extramarital affair is suing Canada's largest cellphone services provider.

But Rogers argues Gabriella Nagy can't blame its billing practices for the breakdown of her marriage.

The battle is playing out through documents filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, with Nagy seeking $600,000 for alleged invasion of privacy and breach of contract.

The July 2007 Rogers invoice, Nagy's suit alleges, ruined her life.

"As a consequence of her husband's said departure, the plaintiff wept uncontrollably at her workplace, did so in the presence of other employees, distracted them, was unfocused and became incapable of performing her employment duties," the statement of claim reads.

"The plaintiff continued to attempt to resume normal job functioning but was unsuccessful, and on Oct. 10, 2007, she was terminated."

Nagy's bill was being sent in her name until her husband signed up for Rogers Internet and home phone. Those services, along with Nagy's cellphone, were bundled into one bill and that new invoice was addressed to her husband, the suit alleges.

"The said invoice mailed to the husband contained details of her outgoing cellular calls," the suit, filed in January 2009, reads.

"The husband thereby had access for the first time to the confidential and private information of the cellular calls made by the plaintiff."

Nagy's husband figured out from the phone bill that she was having an affair and left her and the children in August 2007.

The suit further alleges that after Nagy broke off the affair, her former lover harassed both her and her husband, destroying any chance of a reconciliation.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

In its statement of defence, Rogers denies it breached Nagy's privacy and says there are no legal grounds for her claims.

"The marriage breakup apparently resulted from the fact the plaintiff was having an extramarital affair, a fact admitted in the statement of claim," the statement of defence reads.

"Rogers is not responsible for the plaintiff's affair or its consequences."

The communications giant is asking the court to dismiss the suit.

Nagy's suit says she continues to suffer "emotional and psychological distress" and is being treated by a psychologist and a psychiatrist

Well, let's see....
You get your stuff bundled together, all charges are listed on a single invoice. It even says so on everything you sign when you get the bundled services

(I know, cause we have Internet, Phone and TV via Rogers). It's all nicely itemized and everything. Same with my Cellphone when I had it.

You can even see example bills.

So, this woman was surprised by this?

This gets down to the 'I screwed myself, so now I'm looking to screw someone else.". Pun intended.

[Keevan_Colton]

Sounds like her husband signed up for something and they decided to bundle her cellphone bill in with it. If I have something in my name and someone else from the same address signs up for something with that company, should they then get my bills and statements?

[AMT]

Sounds like her husband signed up for something and they decided to bundle her cellphone bill in with it. If I have something in my name and someone else from the same address signs up for something with that company, should they then get my bills and statements?

If it's under a shared account, yes.
And married couples are able to do such things, least in the US

[Dominus Atheos]

Sounds like her husband signed up for something and they decided to bundle her cellphone bill in with it. If I have something in my name and someone else from the same address signs up for something with that company, should they then get my bills and statements?

If it's under a shared account, yes.
And married couples are able to do such things, least in the US

There's no such thing as "shared accounts" for cell phone bills. The bills go to one person. Just like a 14 year old son can't make changes, the husband can't either.

[Aaron]

Yes he can, if he's been authorized by the account holder to do so.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Yes he can, if he's been authorized by the account holder to do so.

I saw this story on the news. The wife went to great pains to separate the cell phone account from others, going so far as to register it to a different address. The phone company just decided to put everything together without notifying the woman. You really think she authorized her husband as a user on her affair-phone?

[xerex]

I saw this story on the news. The wife went to great pains to separate the cell phone account from others, going so far as to register it to a different address. The phone company just decided to put everything together without notifying the woman. You really think she authorized her husband as a user on her affair-phone?

if that was the case (diff address) then how did they know that this woman and man were husband and wife ? as far as they would know its was just 2 separate people with the same surname.

[Aaron]

I saw this story on the news. The wife went to great pains to separate the cell phone account from others, going so far as to register it to a different address. The phone company just decided to put everything together without notifying the woman. You really think she authorized her husband as a user on her affair-phone?

I've learned never to underestimate the power of human stupidity. That said, if the company decided to do it on their own, well someones in trouble.

[eion]

If she'd used a prepaid cell-phone like a smart person, there wouldn't have been any problem at all.

[Themightytom]

I saw this story on the news. The wife went to great pains to separate the cell phone account from others, going so far as to register it to a different address. The phone company just decided to put everything together without notifying the woman. You really think she authorized her husband as a user on her affair-phone?

if that was the case (diff address) then how did they know that this woman and man were husband and wife ? as far as they would know its was just 2 separate people with the same surname.

If the company wins this case (somehow) does this open the door for cheated husbands everywhere to sue because Rogers didn't PROVIDE them with cell records off their wife?
Or is the Canadian legal system progressive enough to say "Your embarrassing yourselves, yes the company screwed up but you are responsible for your own infidelity, the discovery of which caused your problems. Seek Counseling and grow up."

[Aaron]

Our legal system is fairly progressive but I hesitate to say thats what will happen. I suspect the company will be fined (they did violate her privacy it seems) but she won't get 600K.

[Solauren]

If this does go against Rogers, all they'll have to do is find the person that handled the accounts, and put some kind of disciplinary note against them. It might cost someone their job.

I doubt it will cost them $600K.

If it does, man, I can see more lawsuits from this.

Frankly, dismissing it might just be the best thing for the legal system.

[Molyneux]

If she'd used a prepaid cell-phone like a smart person, there wouldn't have been any problem at all.

Care to explain or justify your statement there, champ?

[Mayabird]

The "person who handled the accounts" is probably several people at a combination call-center and office who dealt with it when it landed on their computer screen, did their thing, and then sent the file off to do its automatic things. For big companies, it's not like one person is assigned to handle a certain number of accounts; it's this big impersonal system where people are auto-assigned the next account in queue. Quite possibly the people who did it weren't documented at all, just nameless drones. And even if any of them did actually break policy or do anything wrong, it doesn't matter because they will never be held accountable for their stupidity, laziness, or incompetence.

[Aaron]

If she'd used a prepaid cell-phone like a smart person, there wouldn't have been any problem at all.

Care to explain or justify your statement there, champ?

Pre-paid phones in Canada tend to be ones you just out-right purchase and then use by purchasing cards that give you minutes. The ones my father and I had didn't even issue you a bill, you could check if you had minutes by calling a number. I figure eion is saying that if she had used one then she never would have gotten caught.

[JointStrikeFighter]

If she'd used a prepaid cell-phone like a smart person, there wouldn't have been any problem at all.

Care to explain or justify your statement there, champ?

Pre-paid phones in Canada tend to be ones you just out-right purchase and then use by purchasing cards that give you minutes. The ones my father and I had didn't even issue you a bill, you could check if you had minutes by calling a number. I figure eion is saying that if she had used one then she never would have gotten caught.

Yeah I am not sure what needed explaining; maybe moly is just retarded?

[eion]

If she'd used a prepaid cell-phone like a smart person, there wouldn't have been any problem at all.

Care to explain or justify your statement there, champ?

A pre-paid cellphone paid for with cash = no bill. No bill = no way for husband to find out about calls being made to the wife's boy toy.

She's an idiot who got caught, and like an idiot she refuses to believe the blame is in something she did, and finds a suitable scapegoat. The company might have done something wrong by consolidating her bill, but she was the idiot who didn't know how to properly compartmentalize her life in the first place. She traded security for convenience, and so she got caught.

People like this give philanderers a bad name

But like JSF said, I thought what I meant was pretty clear already.

[Molyneux]

Pre-paid phones in Canada tend to be ones you just out-right purchase and then use by purchasing cards that give you minutes. The ones my father and I had didn't even issue you a bill, you could check if you had minutes by calling a number. I figure eion is saying that if she had used one then she never would have gotten caught.

Yeah I am not sure what needed explaining; maybe moly is just retarded?

Or maybe I've never owned a pre-paid cell phone, and wasn't sure what Eion was driving at, asshole.
"Like a smart person" could either imply that it was the smart thing to do in that situation, or that it was the only intelligent way to buy a cell phone, period. I wasn't sure which it was. Oh, and I figured that the phone company would still keep a record of calls made, even on a pre-paid - I had no reason to believe otherwise.

[xerex]

Or maybe I've never owned a pre-paid cell phone, and wasn't sure what Eion was driving at, asshole.
"Like a smart person" could either imply that it was the smart thing to do in that situation, or that it was the only intelligent way to buy a cell phone, period. I wasn't sure which it was. Oh, and I figured that the phone company would still keep a record of calls made, even on a pre-paid - I had no reason to believe otherwise.

they'd still be a record BUT with no bill (since its pre paid) there's be no reason to send a list of phone calls to the client

[CaptainChewbacca]

Indeed, there's no bill. There's a record, but unless the husband got a court-order he wouldn't be able to access them, since the phone wouldn't be in his name.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Indeed, there's no bill. There's a record, but unless the husband got a court-order he wouldn't be able to access them, since the phone wouldn't be in his name.

I think that's the crux of the matter here: the company's negligence allowed the husband access to information he shouldn't have been able to have access to without a court order.


Should she get something for this? Well, yeah. Infidelity is not, to my understanding, a crime in Soviet Canuckistan. In the eyes of the law, she did nothing wrong; dislikable, perhaps, but not wrong. The company's revelation of this information - which they had no right to reveal - caused her clear and unquestionably negative results; the loss of her marriage.

If a company does something which causes you bad results, even if you can be determined to be partly to blame (see also: hot coffee woman,) the company is liable.

Six hundred grand? Who knows. Who can put a price on a ruined marriage. You can certainly put a price on any material goods that the divorce may have cost her (or cost her access to,) and there's a nice, comfortable gray area surrounding the cost of lost income from the union and so forth and so on.


A lot of people here are screaming that "lawl she was unloyal the bitch should get nothing." Well, fuck that. What if it hadn't been, say, her infidelity that was revealed? Whether or not you like the woman's actions, the company provided her husband with information it should not have.

What if, for point of argument, it hadn't been a lover, but a political party's inner lines that she was calling - a party that her husband had such a strong hatred for that he couldn't bring himself to be married to someone in that party? The nature of the information the company revealed is immaterial - the crux of the matter is that they revealed it, revealed information they shoud not have, and it caused this woman grevious harm.

[Aaron]

Who's "a lot of people"? I count one, maybe two and even then only vaguely.

I don't think your going to find many folks that will argue the company was right to do this but rather folks who have little sympathy for her. Will she get 600k$?

No way. This isn't the US with it's massive compensation numbers.

[eion]

Or maybe I've never owned a pre-paid cell phone, and wasn't sure what Eion was driving at, asshole.

And I've never owned an F-16, but I can tell you that unlike most other jet fighters of its generation, it has the control stick mounted off to the side, rather than between the pilot's legs, which grants a number of benefits over center-stick configurations.

Thank you, Wikipedia.

But, we've cleared up any confusion, sorry if my point wasn't clear; I just assumed everyone had seen The Wire and knows what a "burner" is.

As for damages, I don't know if Canada uses juries for civil cases, but she'll never get a jury to agree with her, adulterers have a very low trust quotient.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Who's "a lot of people"? I count one, maybe two and even then only vaguely.

I don't think your going to find many folks that will argue the company was right to do this but rather folks who have little sympathy for her. Will she get 600k$?

No way. This isn't the US with it's massive compensation numbers.

Six hundred grand is excessive, but their actions did lead to her being materially harmed; they owe her at least that much. And I'd love to see them get whalloped with a nice fat punitive payout - put it into the coffers of the government for all I care, but money is the only language business understands.

[Aaron]

Look, you'll get no argument from me that the company should be fined. But how exactly is this woman entitled to 600K? I'm in no way an expert in Canadian law but aren't these things based on how much she would have earned at her current job and such? And wouldn't a tonne of it wind up going to him in the form of alimony?