[GreenTiger]

There is something right in that the personal information about Ms Nagy should not have been included in the Universal bill, but she should have been intelligent enough to use another address address if the is going to do this sort of thing especially with a cell phone as there are records of almost everything.

Things get real complicated when you have an affair outside of the fact that it is just plain WRONG.

While I agree that Rogers shouldn't have included that bill in with the universal bill that fact that her marriage went in the tank has more to do with her and her boy friend.

The moral of the story should be don't have affairs as it's not worth it and you can risk loosing a lot more than what you can think of.

[Brenda]

QBall QBall:

There seems to be information missing from the article. I heard about this story on the morning talk shows today, and according to them Rogers left a message at the residence informing that she was behind on her payments on the cell phone, which was in her maiden name. The husband called and asked Rogers to put everything on one universal bill. When he got the next bill he saw the hour long phone calls she was having on that cell phone with the same unrecognized number. That's how he found out.
So while Rogers dropped the ball by allowing the cell phone bill to be conglomerated into the other bills at the request of someone other than the account holder, IMHO the fault for the break up of the marriage squarely rests with the idiot woman (you know, the one who had the affair). Why would she leave her home phone number as the alternate contact number for that account? I would award her $1 dollar in compensation since she is legally in the right, however all her damages were caused by her.

I assume something like that will happen

Why didnt she get a pay as you go in the first place?

[BartSimpson]

The woman is wrong here. She's legally married to her husband and Canada has community property laws so the husband was within his rights to ask for a combined bill and Rogers was right to provide it. She was wrong for sneaking around and it's a good thing she got caught before she contracted an STD and passed it along to her husband.

[gerv]

Some people can find an excuse for stupidity anywhere

[Brenda]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The woman is wrong here. She's legally married to her husband and Canada has community property laws so the husband was within his rights to ask for a combined bill and Rogers was right to provide it. She was wrong for sneaking around and it's a good thing she got caught before she contracted an STD and passed it along to her husband.

No, that's not true. I am solely responsible for the bills that are in my name and cannot be transfered to anyone residing at my address without my or their permission, whether I am legally married to them or not.

[wildrosegirl]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The woman is wrong here. She's legally married to her husband and Canada has community property laws so the husband was within his rights to ask for a combined bill and Rogers was right to provide it.

Actually, not the case. Property is joint, but where accounts are concerned, the account holder must give written authorization for the company to release any information, spouses included, or to allow even an inquiry about the account. NO information can be disclosed without it. (I've dealt with it several times in the past).

$1:

She was wrong for sneaking around and it's a good thing she got caught before she contracted an STD and passed it along to her husband.

Damn skippy. She's completely in the wrong where her actions are concerned, and is an absolute low-life coward for trying to pin accountability on someone else.

[Dragom]

Ya now this is why you don't get married and make your girlfriend sign a rental agreement when she moves in.

Shared property, letting other people screw with your bills and credit rating.

Other people telling you what your responsibilities are to each other.

Strangers telling you your a bad person just for having sex with people?

Seriously, the whole things a fucked up mess and your better off not touching it.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The woman is wrong here. She's legally married to her husband and Canada has community property laws so the husband was within his rights to ask for a combined bill and Rogers was right to provide it. She was wrong for sneaking around and it's a good thing she got caught before she contracted an STD and passed it along to her husband.

Not quite. Community property law only deals with property division on divorce and that is only codified in Quebec. Her privacy was violated and whatever her short-comings as a wife, corporate violation of ones privacy is a much worse and much more dangerous breach of trust for society than matrimonial infidelity. And who knows, maybe he was a shitty husband. We don't know WHY she was cheating, but that's not our business either. No, Roger's is the bad-guy here.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

“In Ontario, we don’t have a privacy act, unlike British Columbia and other provinces.”

I can't believe the unmitigated gall of this whore, to complain about Roger's violating her trust.

[Lemmy]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I can't believe the unmitigated gall of this whore, to complain about Roger's violating her trust.

So privacy is reserved only for non-whores?

[ShepherdsDog]

I think the quote above my comment deals with that.

[Dragom]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

“In Ontario, we don’t have a privacy act, unlike British Columbia and other provinces.”

I can't believe the unmitigated gall of this whore, to complain about Roger's violating her trust.

Hey, no ones saying she took money for sex, so she isn't a whore, and no ones saying she had a harem of men but rather just one boytoy on the side, so she isn't a slut.

She's just a bored wife that enjoyed having a secret.

It isn't the governments or a corporations job to tell your SO what your doing.

Thats Facebooks job.

[Yogi]

Dragom Dragom:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

“In Ontario, we don’t have a privacy act, unlike British Columbia and other provinces.”

I can't believe the unmitigated gall of this whore, to complain about Roger's violating her trust.

Hey, no ones saying she took money for sex, so she isn't a whore, and no ones saying she had a harem of men but rather just one boytoy on the side, so she isn't a slut.

She's just a bored wife that enjoyed having a secret.

It isn't the governments or a corporations job to tell your SO what your doing.

Thats Facebooks job.

whore
2 entries found.

1whore (noun)

2whore (verb)


Main Entry: 1whore
Pronunciation: \ˈhȯr, ˈhu̇r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English hore, from Old English hōre; akin to Old Norse hōra whore, hōrr adulterer, Latin carus dear — more at charity
Date: before 12th century
1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : prostitute; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman
2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money
3 : a venal or unscrupulous person

[Freakinoldguy]

Monkeyman Monkeyman:

This is weird. I'm interested in this case, but I don't really care which way it goes. Rogers shouldn't have done that, but she kinda deserved it.

I think the term you're looking for here is Karma.

[BeaverFever]

Yeah the news story is spun to sell headlines, e.g. "Cheating wife sues Rogers for exposing her affair and ruining marriage". Obviously the marriage was already ruined.

In reality, she is suing Rogers for breach of privacy under terms that would be no different if it had divulged any personal information to a third party, be it spouse or anybody else.

Also, Rogers did not "expose an affair". The Husband exposed the affair by figuring out that the phone number being called belong to a boyfriend (and not say, her old college roomate or a relative or whatever). For all we know, the husband had been a suspcious snooper all along and saw an opportunity to try and gain access to her account when it became past-due.

No question that regarless of this woman's morals (or whether the husband desvered it) Rogers is responsible for violating her privacy by sharing account info with a third party. The account was even under her maiden name, which should have been a red flag for the customer service rep who took the husband's direction to combine the accounts. What will be interesting is how the award for damages are attributed and the extent to which the court holds Rogers responsible. It could probably be argued that the damages resulting from the divorce are attributable to their failing marriage and her infidelity, not to Rogers. Probably Rogers would have to pay SOME amount, but may likely not be held responsible for everything.