Originally Posted by sew12

That isn't what its about for this woman but that doesn't make what Rogers is doing right.

People just disagree b/c she's a cheater. If this were a different situation, like for the example the situation with the abusive husband people would be more sympathetic.

I don't agree that she should necessarily win a lawsuit but I do think Rogers is in the wrong. She can have her cell phone bill however she wants. If she's paying it she can have it separated from her husband's/house holds stuff. In my house we have a bundle with all our Rogers services but we keep our Rogers Wireless separated from that bundle and get a separate bill.

lolno.




edit: to clarify, I don't disagree because she's a cheater (obviously, we all know I promote cheating). I disagree because she's an idiot.

If rogers makes it clear (somewhere) that they will bill together unless asked not to, they will almost surely not be held responsible. This is why you read the fine print!

Im pretty sure normally telecom companies sort their databases based on ur address, not ur name. Ur name is generally meaningless to them.
So when the husband amalgamated everything into one, it would logically make sense for rogers to send one huge bill.
Either way, serves her right.

Originally Posted by DavidR

What If...

It were an abusive relationship and the wife's calls to hotlines / for help were found by the husband and things got worse?

Sure in this case the wife was an idiot, but that doesn't make what Rogers did right.

That's my thoughts

That's a good point to make - I didn't even think of that. Hopefully that never happens to anyone.

But I think it's important to note what a commenter said above: it's on Rogers' privacy policy. This woman can argue and sue all she wants, but she should have read the fine print under the "Terms and Conditions" that she signed, because I'm sure it's in there.

I don't think it's a good idea for Rogers to do this without getting consent from both parties. But if it's in their policy that she agreed to, she has no case.

Realistically speaking I don't think there's anything like that in their contract otherwise her lawyer would have clearly told her she has no case. She lost her job over the whole fiasco and probably doesn't have tons of money to fork over to a lawyer to fight a case that he/she (the lawyer) clearly doesn't think she has a chance on.

Emotions aside, I think she has every right to sue and I definitely do not condone cheating. I wouldn't want my cell phone bill coming to be bunched with my parents' bills just because we live at the same address... There has to be a line drawn for privacy. The calls someone makes on their personal cell phone under their name is their business, period.

When I used to work collections and we were allowed to talk to the spouse in certain states (because we were calling the US) and when we would talk to them we would have to verify info with them. Having said that I specifically remember one account where the husband of this woman was an authorized user on the card (we were allowed to speak with him only because of that to try and receive a payment) and he could not verify the address on file. He believed his wife had a secret credit card and wanted me to tell him what card it was, what the balance was, and what address she had put on file. I couldn't because he couldn't confirm any information with me. This also wasn't a law to do so, but a company policy to ensure security for one's privacy.

Personal information should NOT automatically be reveiled to a spouse there has to be a line somewhere.

Originally Posted by shes-a-diva*

Realistically speaking I don't think there's anything like that in their contract otherwise her lawyer would have clearly told her she has no case. She lost her job over the whole fiasco and probably doesn't have tons of money to fork over to a lawyer to fight a case that he/she (the lawyer) clearly doesn't think she has a chance on.

Ummmm, lawyers have been known to try and beat contracts. Ask one what a hold harmless agreement is worth (hint: less than the paper its written on). If there's a possible way that you might win a lawsuit, there's some lawyer that'll agree to try.

Anyways, beyond that, who wants to bet somehow the husband she cheated on is ending up paying for this lawyer anyways?

Originally Posted by arathbon

Ummmm, lawyers have been known to try and beat contracts. Ask one what a hold harmless agreement is worth (hint: less than the paper its written on). If there's a possible way that you might win a lawsuit, there's some lawyer that'll agree to try.

Anyways, beyond that, who wants to bet somehow the husband she cheated on is ending up paying for this lawyer anyways?

Seriously though? I've heard of more lawyers who offer to initially take cases on for free to fight to win and then take payment for the services... Some lawyer clearly heard about this case and thought it would give him/her notoriety. I have yet to hear of a lawyer who takes on a case this hefty knowing its so weak and will most definitely be publicized.

Also I'm no lawyer but I've watched enough court shows in my life to know that a contract is a contract and there generally is no real way to get out of it or reap something from it unless stated. A contract is usually concrete with few if any loop holes. Did you know most corporations hire lawyers to write their contracts so they don't get the short end of the stick? And Rogers has a paper copy of said contract so if there's nothing in her contract specifying privacy issues then I'm almost certain she has SOMEWHAT of a case.

I also seriously doubt her husband is paying for anything. That's real chauvinistic of you IMO.

There are still lawyers who try to sue cigarette companies on behalf of smokers, there really isn't a case flimsy enough that you can't get a lawyer who'll try it. Most of the time they're just trying to cause bad PR for the company in hopes of a pay off.

Originally Posted by shes-a-diva*

Seriously though? I've heard of more lawyers who offer to initially take cases on for free to fight to win and then take payment for the services... Some lawyer clearly heard about this case and thought it would give him/her notoriety. I have yet to hear of a lawyer who takes on a case this hefty knowing its so weak and will most definitely be publicized.

That's what people said about the hot coffee lawyers.....

Also I'm no lawyer but I've watched enough court shows in my life to know that a contract is a contract and there generally is no real way to get out of it or reap something from it unless stated.

Court shows? That's what your basing it on? Try being part of an organization which is told up front by lawyers that they can't rely on hold harmless agreements ( a type of contract) because they aren't worth the paper they're written on. The fact is, as long as the lawyer can make an argument over why the contract shouldn't be valid, it could be challenged.

(And ps., most court shows are actually binding arbitration, not an actual court case)

A contract is usually concrete with few if any loop holes. Did you know most corporations hire lawyers to write their contracts so they don't get the short end of the stick?

Yes. And did you know that its impossible to predict every single objection to something? The fact is, pending the outcome of this case, every other phone provider is probably contacting their lawyers, and asking if their contract has the same shortcomings.

And Rogers has a paper copy of said contract so if there's nothing in her contract specifying privacy issues then I'm almost certain she has SOMEWHAT of a case.

Listen I don't know IF they have one, I just know that others on the thread have asserted as such. My argument is conditional on it, so maybe they could show you.

But in any case, if there is one, it is still possible for the lawyer to argue that she wasn't given warning of the implications of the practice, that the practice shouldn't be allowed regardless of the contract etc.

I also seriously doubt her husband is paying for anything. That's real chauvinistic of you IMO.

The husband left Nagy and their two children, aged 6 and 7, a month after making the discovery.

After the breakup, Nagy was emotionally distraught and eventually lost her job and her ability to work.

She also broke off the affair shortly after her husband left.

According to the statement of claim, Nagy continues to suffer emotional and psychological distress, has been prescribed antidepressants and is under the care of a psychologist and psychiatrist.

Find me a family court judge that won't look favorably on her, and I'll give you one not in Canada.

Originally Posted by shes-a-diva*

Seriously though? I've heard of more lawyers who offer to initially take cases on for free to fight to win and then take payment for the services... Some lawyer clearly heard about this case and thought it would give him/her notoriety. I have yet to hear of a lawyer who takes on a case this hefty knowing its so weak and will most definitely be publicized.

Also I'm no lawyer but I've watched enough court shows in my life to know that a contract is a contract and there generally is no real way to get out of it or reap something from it unless stated. A contract is usually concrete with few if any loop holes. Did you know most corporations hire lawyers to write their contracts so they don't get the short end of the stick? And Rogers has a paper copy of said contract so if there's nothing in her contract specifying privacy issues then I'm almost certain she has SOMEWHAT of a case.

I also seriously doubt her husband is paying for anything. That's real chauvinistic of you IMO.

Wow, that is not chauvinistic at all, lmao. Considering I was thinking the exact same thing. lawl.

There isn't a judge in Canada who would side against a woman. My mom's the one that divorced my dad and he still pays her legal feels, lmao.

Canada fails like that.


The loss of her job is her own damn fault. Seriously, control your bloody emotions and stop being a dramaqueen.

Hypothetical: Suppose I didn't make the football team. I go home and put on the waterworks. I'm all depressed and I stop working effectively and get fired.

Do I get special treatment? Of course not, it's my own fault. (And I'm a single white male)