Canadian mobe firm sued over disappearing husband

A disgruntled woman is suing Canadian telco Rogers Wireless for destroying her marriage. The mobile provider bundled her cellphone bill in with bills for internet access and cable TV which it sent to her husband. He opened the bill and found she had made several hour-long calls to one number. Hubby called this number and …

[Christopher W]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaaa-

-aaaaahahahahahaha. Classic. I love the desperate attempts to deflect blame and admonish an innocent party for someone else's wrongdoing - Only In American. Hopefully this gets thrown out of court with a severe reprimand for wasting court time as soon as the case is heard, what a ridiculous couldn't-make-it-up story.

Mine's the one with a separate paper bill in it

[Anonymous Coward]

Rogers may not be innocent in this ...

Rogers may not be innocent in this, but even if they did something wrong, the scale of it is certainly less than the woman's error.

[Steven Hunter]

Uhh, no...

"I love the desperate attempts to deflect blame and admonish an innocent party for someone else's wrongdoing - Only In American[sic]"

Or, in a more accurate sense, CANADA.

[Havin_it]

But but but but

But Canada *is* in America!

Bit harsh of the OP to make such a sweeping generalisation about a whole continent (or 2 continents, or even 3 if you count Central), but still valid nonetheless. Now if s/he'd said "Only in USAian", that'd be another matter...

[ahayes]

lulwut?

Canuckia is a country in North **America**.

So to say America is just as *accurate* as Canuckia, it is merely less *precise*.

Paris for the stupidity of that which this comment is in reply.

[Rob.T]

Re:Hahahahahahahahahahahahaaa

@Christopher "Only In American"...?

First of the country your thinking of is called 'America', and secondly the company and woman are in Canada

[Sorry that handle is already taken.]

Re: Rob.T

1) There's a country called "America"?

2) It's "you're".

[Peter H. Coffin]

Only where?

By "Only In American", you of course mean "only in Canada"....

[Anonymous Coward]

RE: Hahahahahahahahahahahahaaa-

"Only In American."

Technically, that would be "only in America" (no "n") except that it isn't. The phone company is Canadian and the story is reported in a Canadian newspaper, so the woman (and her former husband) is more than likely Canadian. It's called "reading comprehension." You ought to try it sometime.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Only in American?"

Ummm... "A disgruntled woman is suing CANADIAN telco Rogers Wireless for destroying her marriage." I mean at least insult the appropriate population! Damn Canuks are only holding our natural resources for us (Americans) until we use up everything within our traditional borders anyway.

Terminator because THEY (CANADIANS) know what's commin. Don't saw you weren't warned.

*giggles*

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada

America's hat.

http://www.bustedtees.com/canadaamericashat

[Jedi Name Germinator]

Canada..

Not American

[Peladon]

_Not_ living in America ( with suitable apologies to Mr J Brown)

From the reply:

" Only in American".

From the posting ( my emphasis):

" A disgruntled woman is suing _Canadian_ telco Rogers Wireless for destroying her marriage."

It might surprise some to find out that Canada ( Canadian - it's a clue!) is not in America. Of course, I cannot speak to whether or not the complainant is in fact from south of the large grey blob that appears on most American weather maps... while getting blamed for all the bad weather :-).

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you want to get technical,

Canada is in the continent of North America.

That and we like to joke about how Canada is the 51st state.

[ratfox]

Only in AMERICA

Yes, it happened in AMERICA.

You are not the only people on this continent all you US citizens.

[Anonymous Coward]

@ _Not_ living in America

Actually, for the benefit of yourself and all the other pendants, this story did take place in America - where Canada can be found, along with the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Honduras, Cuba, Jamaca, Trinidad-Tobago, Colombia, and several other countries whose names I can't be bothered to look up at the moment.

In other breaking news, the UK is in Europe.

[CD001]

pedant alert

----

It might surprise some to find out that Canada ( Canadian - it's a clue!) is not in America.

----

Ummm - yes it is, North America - as is the United States of America (the other country in "America"). If you were to say the "Americas" that would include Brazil, Peru and so on.

[Anonymous Coward]

@HAHAHAHAHAHA (No Rogers Communication in the USA, only Canada)

Christopher,

Just for the record, Rogers Communication is only available in Canada, not the USA.

I just love it when you folks in Europe (how do you like them apples) lump everything that happens in North America under the banner of "Damned Yankees". On the other hand, perhaps El Reg could have included more detail in the article.

I learned a long time ago that you should get out of your current arrangements before you look for new prospects, though many people do make stupid mistakes in the heat of passion.

Looks like this gal reaped what she sowed and doesn't deserve much pity least of all from the Canadian justice system. She should have asked for the "No detailed billing" option if they offer it.

I suppose after her husband checked the phone bill he might have also checked her browser history but it sounds like he must have gone right to the source and heard the answer no spouse ever wants to hear. Can't blame him for leaving.

[Colin_L]

only in America?

Other than the fact this happened in Canada, that's an interesting observation.

[Cameron Colley]

Loosing her job and needing medical treatment?

What kind of basket case was she?

Sounds like her husband potentially had a cheap escape thanks to the fuckup.

[Sarah Bee]

Re: Loosing her job and needing medical treatment?

People can get very upset when their marriages break down for whatever reason, and the resulting state they get into can lead to other problems such as the loss of their job in a sort of snowball effect. Medical treatment isn't uncommon in such circumstances. I suppose this is either difficult for you to understand, or you can't be arsed because it's less fun.

BTW, 'losing', you silly arse.

[Richard 120]

God that pisses me off

I really hate it when people spell lose as loose.

I don't know why, other spelling mistakes don't wind me up, but that one is just fucking annoying.

[Rattus Rattus]

That's

one of my spelling pet hates too. It's right up there with people insisting on putting an 'x' in 'espresso.'

[Anonymous Coward]

Medical treatment is probably necessary

Just to get rid of her STD's. She's going to need that money to raise her sprog.

And her marriage didn't just "break down". She was cheating on her (soon to be ex-) hubby.

I have more sympathy for the kids who are going to be messed up by all this.

[Marvin the Martian]

"kids messed up by this"

Ah, so they wouldn't be messed up beforehand, when living with the type of person who thinks "Husband left me because of my cheating? Bingo! I can now make some serious money off the one error that tripped me up, maybe become C-list celeb"? I sincerely doubt that.

[CapitalW]

Sorry, can't think of a title

I dunno....sounds like she was the loose one.

[Cameron Colley]

Apologies for the spelling.

I really should have proof-read my post.

As for her being upset -- she should have though of that before screwing someone else behind her husband's back. She's obviously psychologically strong enough to cheat on her husband and hide it from him -- and she obviously thought it would be OK for his mental health too.

Besides, if she was upset about her marriage breaking down then that should have happened the day she let some other guy shag her -- that was the day it broke down.

As I said, her husband is better off without the weak-willed pathetic woman and this has done him a favour in the long run.

[Sarah Bee]

Re: Apologies for the spelling.

Have you ever, like, met another human being?

You all talk as if you're infallible. It's hilarious. No, wait, it's absurd.

[Andus McCoatover]

Grief...

"The incident eventually led to the woman at the centre of the case losing her job and requiring medical attention. She is seeking $600,000"

Requiring medical attention? Because her hubby smacked the living shit out of her once he found out he'd been dipping his wick in someone else's 'sloppy seconds'?

Losing her job? Obviously she was a model, and a couple of black eyes isn't conducive, unless it's a sunglasses-modelling job. Well, the affair only lasted a few weeks. That's OK, then.

Grenade icon, 'cos I'll bet she did.

[Sarah Bee]

Re: Grief...

Fucking hell, Andus.

[James O'Brien]

Nice one Sarah

Though Im surprised the Moderatrix let that post through.......

Either way got me laughing at your reply.

[Sarah Bee]

Re: Nice one Sarah

With threads like this one I let pretty much everything through so you can all see each other's naked nastiness and compare it with your own. I know how much you like that.

If anyone has any further dazzling insight on this grave matter, best blurt it out now because I'm closing this fucker after another 15 comments. If in your haste you neglect the niceties of grammar or don't bother engaging your brain, well, that's just spiffy.

[Professor Tinklepants]

Lemme get this straight...

...over half a mil for an affair that lasted 'a few weeks'?

That is one high-class hooker!!

The dirty cheating tart doesn't deserve a penny.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad...

I'm really curious to see how this plays out, because the approach to bundling and privacy here is really loose.

My girlfriend had our phone, TV, and internet bundled when she had cable added onto our services. The services are all in my name, and I'm the one billed, but I was not approached or asked for my consent to have the new material bundled on.

The telcos bundle based on address. Technically this is probably a legal liability for them, as it amounts to a few contractual problems, not the least being to ensure that others don't have unconsented access to private information. They also are willing to bundle/rebundle services at the drop of a hat. It's a marketing and pricing strategy for them, and they're quick to want to make the sale.

Will this case be about those legal issues? I highly doubt it.

[the bat]

Too bad continue...

You are right - the bundle practice is a breach of contract and very much more so privacy. What if you live in a rented house upstairs and tenants downstairs all sharing the same postal address, to Rogers you are all at the address they will bundle address! Rogers failed to acknowledge the fact that the names on the accounts are different and that should have stopped the process from starting based on privacy and the privacy laws of Canada.

[Marvin the Martian]

Tenants downstairs?

Those would have a different house number, say 51 and 51A, otherwise all mail would be mixed. Not if you have some illegal tenants, but hey, that's not the telecom's problem.

Your partner living at the same address though probably has also submitted the same fixed line as contact number etc etc. The mixup has historical roots: phone is just a utility like water and gas, but only quite recently with itemized billing privacy issues have come up, and they haven't yet dealt with them. (Because they haven't been sufficiently sued yet, of course.)

[Jon 52]

Ok how about jsut a house share

When I started working I couldn't afford to live on my own and knew noone where I was moving to. I got a house share. 4 months later the I found out the livin landlord had not been paying any bills on the house for about 15months (even though the other 3 of us had been paying her money each month we had been there (bills were in her name only). What if our bills had been bundled with hers, we could then be listed as "linked" in any credit record and would probably be liable to pay more of her debt.

[the bat]

itemize billing

Itemize billing justifies the usage of the white space on the bill - paper wastage... different house numbers where heck do you live? using the scenario of 51 and 51A in a housing development could also mean two separate houses or lots but for some reason due to may be zoning or the sub dividing of the lot two houses built on the same property.

[Richard 120]

Title Reqd

Rogers Wireless Rogers woman who Rogers behind husband back?

I bet she wants to keep his name out of the report because it's Roger and it would just get too damned confusing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly

If the bill went to the hubby then presumably the account was either in his name alone or in joint names. There must have been some link between the internet account and the mobile account otherwise no such connection could have been made by the telco. So, surely there's implicit permission in that to send the bill to the hubby.

And even if not, why should the woman get any money for screwing around? If she'd not been caught out she'd probably have looked at the bill, said "Mmm...I wonder why it was sent to you hun?", and left it at that.

[Alexander Hanff 1]

A little naive

It is not uncommon for companies to send documents to the wrong person - in fact it happens all too frequently. So to suggest there must have been a link is a little naive - it is likely they were bundled simply because they both lived at the same address.

Affair aside (which I don't condone) her personal account statements should not have been bundled with her husband's, period - so yes Rogers are liable in my mind.

Let us look at this from a slightly different angle. Say she had been using the phone to get counselling for domestic/spousal abuse and her husband found out and killed her in a fit of rage - would that not be Roger's liability either?

My point is, what she was doing with this private phone is completely irrelevant - it was registered under her name and therefore should not have been sent to her husband - period.

And just a quick reply to the first comment - learn to read you idiot, the title of the article clearly states "CANADIAN" so your american comment just made you look stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

anything to smack 'merkins

Because they so obviously deserve it.

[tas]

@AC, "Silly"

From your first paragraph you seem to not understand the main technical issue in this case and the reason why the article is valuable and not just tabloid material.

Some telco providers bundle billing if they are linked to the same address. Specifically, it seems to be common with cable companies. In other words, for almost all practical purposes the account is in the name of the *address* not the person who opened the contract. So, what almost certainly happened in this case is that regardless of whose name was used for the primary services to that address, it would have been organisationally simple for the telco to add any other services linked to that address, which happened to include the woman's mobile contract and its billing. Whether this was intentional or not would be a very interesting question...

On a related note, Virgin Media do the same type of address bundling for billing. When I last enquired about additional landline telephone line services to our address (mid 2009), I was told that it was impossible for them to send separate bills for the services and it was impossible for them to have separate accounts at the same household. Obviously, I refused to take up the additional services with them (even though they were the cheapest offer) because there's no way I'd either want to manually go through a comprehensive bill and separate out the charges every month and, to be honest, I really really did not want to be financially linked (credit report etc) to another person.

[Anonymous Coward]

VM monkey talking utter bollox

I lived in a shared house and we had 2 net lines, one bundeled with tv in different names. I got my name and the other guy got his bills in his name

[Al 4]

Avoid bundled serviced

My dad recently had an experience with bundled services that most people don't ever think about. Because he was in an argument with AT&T over payments concerning cable his phone service was restricted as to whom he could call. He could receive all phone calls without problems, just not talk to me a few miles away. The problem was on their end, and he was told it was his responsibility to prove to them he had the canceled check for the bill. Didn't take him long to get his cable switch from his phone provided. They don't think of you as a person just a billing address. In this case they were looking to save a few cents on mailing so they put together all the bills for the same address.

[Anonymous Coward]

An apology from Rogers?

What does she want, a public apology from the phone company? She might get that and a few hundred dollars credit on her phone bill.

She breached her marriage contract and now she is looking for someone else to pay her bills.

[Dave 52]

As much as I like seeing Rogers bled dry the same way they bleed their customers...

...this is stupid and should be thrown out of court as fast as possible. That cheating wh*re got what she deserved.

[min]

oh. my. dog.

what a way to get outed.

Rogers deserve a magnum of champers for that; she, on the other hand, deserves a melchizedek of idiot juice for her brilliance.

the man? well, at least he should have been thankful for the wake up call.

[Anonymous Coward]

Was amused..

until the bit about the account being in her maiden name, but the bill being sent to her (ex) husbands name.

Now that is wrong. Probably not $600k wrong, but wrong nevertheless.

Put another way, they sent confidential details and billing information to someone who WAS NOT THE owner of the confidential details. If the government had done that the RegTards would have gone apeshit.

BTW, I agree with SarahB, a lot of divorces end with medical treatment issues, so you bunch of c**ts should wind your necks in.

[TimeMaster T]

Community property

Once she was married the husband had legal access to any information not protected by Dr./Patient, Lawyer/Client, etc., privileges. Or something like that, IANAL, but I don't believe the telco did anything wrong on any level. I'll be surprised if the courts don't just throw this one out.

I'll bet she is suing the telco because she knows she won't get any alimony from her ex. and also to try and paint herself as a "victim" to garner some sympathy instead of the scorn she deserves.

I've been where the husband is now so I am biased in his favor. The wife may have needed some anti-depressants but the husband has had his life turned upside down and run through a blender. He is now a single parent of two children, the woman he trusted most has betrayed him, he is going to have to explain to the children why he had to leave mommy and he is going to be the one who wakes up in the middle of the night wondering what went wrong.

Unanswered questions;

who requested the bills be combined?

Why did the husband call the number and not just ask his wife about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

RE: Was amused..

"BTW, I agree with SarahB, a lot of divorces end with medical treatment issues, so you bunch of c**ts should wind your necks in."

$600,000 medical bills? That's a LOT of medical treatment - an entire mountain of prozac.

I'm thinking she knows she'll get no money in the divorce settlement and is trying to make some using other means...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow...

...lots of angry, angry folks prepared to pass judgement on this woman. I agree that the lawsuit is a seedy move, but let's save the sexists insults until we actually know the facts*

*ie never.

[Stone Fox]

RE:Wow

ummm... facts? You mean like the fact she had an affair? That she admitted?

He's going to have to question the parentage of his two kids as well now that he's discovered she's a dirty slag.

[Alexander Hanff 1]

Settle

I can't see how Roger's have a leg to stand on here - I expect they will settle out of court because they were in the wrong irrespective of how people may try to use the moral argument of the afair to try and justify their mistake.

I am presuming Canadian Data Protection Law is very similar to the UK (given it is a commonwealth state) and in the UK one only needs to prove damage resulting from the defendent's negligence - it would seem that this woman will be able to prove damage without any problems and therefore it should be an open and shut case.

And for the record, under UK DP law damage does not have to be monetary, it can be emotional/mental such as depression or stress, although in this case she also lost her job which would likely satisfy financial damage as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

RE: Settle

"And for the record, under UK DP law damage does not have to be monetary, it can be emotional/mental such as depression or stress, although in this case she also lost her job which would likely satisfy financial damage as well."

Still doesn't explain how her medical bills came to so much.

Imagine how much diazepam you can buy for $600,000

[Chad H.]

So.....

Rogers are being sued for providing a service that those of us in the uk are asked to pay for (itemised paper billing)?

[Owen B]

If she's clever...

If she's clever, she could approach a rival company with a pitch to do a paperless billing advert.

Ultimately I agree with AC @ 18th May 2010 15:45 GMT.

I don't think this case will be about what it should be; that being the privacy issues.

[Old Tom]

Sounds to me like she's right

While I normally hate people suing corporations on dubious grounds, this sounds like the utility company were well out of order here. If it was her contract and bill, and they unilaterally lumped it in with a 3rd party's bill, they've managed a double whammy of disclosing confidential data and billing that 3rd party for her account.

Reminds me of BT 30 years ago when my mum had a phone installed in her name, bill to her etc, and BT put my dad's name in the phone book.

I hope she wins, but only a few bob.

[Barry Rueger]

So Sorry

Even though Rogers are evil scum (as are the other two cel oligopolies in Canada) I will offer a hearty apology to the rest of the world for wasting your time on idiocy like this.

Besides - I suspect that she's an immigrant from south of the border...

[Graham Bartlett]

Wha...?!?!

Colour me unsympathetic. You go and have an affair, you *do* deserve to lose your marriage over it. If you're not prepared to risk that (or, in fairness, if you don't in advance have some understanding with your other half), then zippers and knickers should stay in place.

That said, Andus has left Sanityville and is speeding home to here. http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/chicago/buttsign012709.JPG

[The old man from scene 24]

There are two separate issues here

1. The affair.

2. Rogers playing fast and loose with private information.

As far as 1 goes, bad call, but that isn't the point of the lawsuit.

Holding Rogers accountable for 2 seems perfectly justified to me, though.

[TimeMaster T]

acountability

Point 2 is only valid if it can be proven that the husband did not have legal access to the information.

More than likely the wife would have had to request/authorize the merge of the accounts. And since the husband was already authorized on his account as soon as the bills where merged, with the wife's auth, then Rogers didn't do anything wrong.

If on the other hand Rogers merged two accounts with different names on them and without authorization from both parties, then yeah, they should get burned to the ground and the ashes scattered.

[Doshu]

cheating ho

yous gots ta go

[Anonymous Coward]

And let's continue it

Welcome to America Bro.

Even the Canadian side assumes that the spouse loses a lot of her basic human rights including the right to privacy after marrying. While Canada is not as bad as Puritanic States of Talebania, it is not far off.

If you do not share your accounts, if you do not share your bills, etc you are not considered a couple.

To put things into perspective in let's say Germany phone numbers on bills are anonymised so you cannot pick a number of a phone bill to which your spouse has called and call it. In most non-anglosaxon civilised countries it is considered the norm for the husband and wife to have separate accounts, separate bills, etc.

[wfeltmate]

Not all the details

The phone account, as I understand from other news vendors, was in his name, but the username (Ie: the call display info and attached to the number) was her's. What it also doesn't say is that the husband requested to have all the services bundled. He was calling in about their other services (internet, tv, etc) and was told he could also bundle the cellphone account. This was all done at his request, Rogers or any other Canadian telecommunication provider cannot just bundle everything together without permission from the account holder.

[Havin_it]

What about her permission?

That sounds fair enough, but following that logic surely her permission was also needed for the bundling to go ahead. If she gave permission, she has no case as she presumably would have notionally acknowledged having "read the small print" that this is what would happen. If their terms didn't make it adequately clear that both bills would come in the same envelope, then she has a case.

If it's the case that none of these points are very clear, another interesting question raises its head: What degree of privacy are spouses, legally, entitled to *from each other*? I only ask because there are many other aspects of law where being married to each other makes a difference, e.g. (if I can believe Law & Order) you cannot be compelled to testify in court against your spouse. That seems to be a case where the law treats a marital unit as, forgive the phrasing, a law unto itself - could this be another?

PS @the sadly numerous misogynistic rants posted above: Christ, get some perspective. Mating for life is a relatively new notion for us as a species and some people just aren't cut out for it. You lot are awfully keen to make horrible pronouncements about a situation you know sod-all about. Grow up please.

[Bassey]

Re: Mating for life

> Christ, get some perspective. Mating for life is a relatively new notion

> for us as a species and some people just aren't cut out for it.

Forgive me if I miss-understood something but she was married, nes pas? SHE chose a mate for life. SHE fucked up. Now SHE is blaming someone else who made a simple administrative error for destroying HER marriage. If she isn't "cut out for it" then why is she so pissed off? It sounds suspiciously like someone caught with their had in the cookie jar trying to blame the biscuit manufacturers.

Call me a heartless bastard but my sympathies lie elsewhere.

[strum]

OK

>Call me a heartless bastard

OK - you're a heartless bastard.

People make mistakes. They have moments of weakness, moments of doubt, moments of passion. That's what being human is about.. Let him without sin, cast the first e-stone.

[Sarah Bee]

Re: OK

Aaaaaaaand scene.

[JohnG]

People not cut out for marriage

"Mating for life is a relatively new notion for us as a species and some people just aren't cut out for it."

Then such people shouldn't get married, should they? Living together and even having children together outside of marriage is no big deal today (expect in some Islamic countries). If you voluntarily enter a contract of marriage and then break it, you have to live with the consequences. This woman needs to grow up and take responsibility for her own actions instead of trying to shift the blame on others. Rogers may well have made an administrative error but the fact this woman's marriage ended is because she cheated in the first place.

"You lot are awfully keen to make horrible pronouncements about a situation you know sod-all about."

We know what has been recorded in this woman's complaint filed against Rogers and people who have been through a divorce or have cheated /been cheated in their marriage may have some relevant experience - all of which is rather more than "sod all".

Just to clarify though, this site publishes stories (some of which are IT related) and then a whole bunch of people leave comments in which they give their opinions on the issues involved, regardless of their expertise in the areas of interest. You may find one or two other sites on the Internet where people do something similar.

[Havin_it]

Must learn to self-censor

Not disagreeing with either of you - and it doesn't look like you posted above so you can count yourselves out of that broadside, which wasn't very well executed anyway. Should have been more specific:

I don't deny what she did was selfish and hurtful, and the justification for the suit seems a bit shaky to say the least, but none of that justifies branding her a whore (or synonyms thereof). That's it really, just wish people would try and balance things (esp.genders) a bit before choosing such words.

Anyway, I'm sorry that the rant deflected from the questions I posed above, which are rather more pertinent to the story.

[davenewman]

Canadian data protection act

Since this is in Canada, doesn't Rogers have to make sure it obeys the Canadian equivalent of the Data Protection Act? It may not help in the civil case, but she could report Rogers to the Canadian Information Commissioner.

[scrubber]

Hope this costs them both

The company should get fined as customer data is sensitive and private information should remain just that and companies have to learn that important lesson.

Woman shouldn't get much of a payout as the breakup wasn't a foreseeable consequence of an administrative problem with billing.

Too many people on here moralising about the woman's actions and not being concerned enough about the company's actions. In this day and age a mobile could belong to a kid and the bill could go to the father (same household) and he might not like who and what his daughter has been up to. Need I finish that thought?

[My backside]

@Christopher W

You putz, why the "American" bashing? This story is from Canada, you moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair

It's always worth doing some American bashing, if only for a laugh.

[Henry Wertz 1]

don't blame us..

don't blame americans on this one. Some think canada is the 51st state, but in fact it is not. 8-) thanks.

[Destroy All Monsters]

Rogers billed Jessica Rabbit?

There is some possibility there...

[JohnG]

A few weeks of adultery

"The woman told the paper the affair only lasted a few weeks. She said she was embarrassed and ashamed over what had happened, but did not deserve to lose her life over it"

That's not how it works. Just one act of adultery can be enough to end a marriage - it depends on the people involved and their history. Her husband must have been more than a little suspicious of his wife to call a number he did not recognise, without first asking her what it represented.

According to the Toronto Star "After she terminated her relationship with the “third party” in August 2007, the jilted lover, himself a married father of three, called Rogers and obtained her secret password to her voicemail and used it to access it to harass her and taunt the husband, the statement of claim alleges."

As her affair only lasted a few weeks, her husband would have found out in the same timeframe without ever seeing a detailed phone bill when the jilted lover started leaving messages.

[steve smith 6]

Now now...

Some of you guys seem very angry. A bit close to home perhaps?

[Daniel 44]

When you...

When you bundle services you are in effect linking the accounts, therefore one bill. The question is how long did she have the phone before this happened? I find it unlikely that she was unaware that her husband was getting the bill, she probably just assumed that he didn't look too close. My previous roommate and I both had the same cell carrier, separate names. There was no account bundling therefore we received separate bills. Is this too hard for some people to grasp? They don't bundle your accounts unless you give them the go ahead to do so.

[Simon Langley]

Cry me a river

So she got found out because Rogers did something they shouldn't have (and they shouldn't) - tough.

This reminds me of Max Mosley complaining about the effect on his wife of the disclosure of his antics with a bunch of prostitutes. What both of them should consider is, regardless of the wrongs of others, if they had behaved themselves, there would have been nothing to disclose.

She has deprived her children of a father through her own behaviour. Suing Rogers won't lessen the guilt she rightly feels.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually...

It's fair enough. There have been many such cases in the public eye over the last few decades. It is not unknown that call lists are sensitive information (something all governments know and enjoy).

I think it is a very good thing if companies take more care about the potential consequences of their actions in this arena.

We make most decisions in life on the basis of "what we think the rules are". Given that information is power, sudden and unexpected (cavalier?) changes in the rules of the game(Terms of Service for example) can catch people, almost literally, with their pants down.

Incidently, most of the comments on this article make me embarrassed to associate with el Reg.

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada and america

You lot saying, Canada is not in america, please improve your geography, Canada is part of america, north america, to be preceise. America(s), is north and south america. The country you are thinking about is called, The United States of America, which canada isnt part of, but, as its name suggests, is part of america.

[John Savard]

Separate Issues?

It would seem reasonable to view the actions of the cable company as separate from the woman's own adulterous affair. But many people resist viewing it that way.

Would it seem reasonable for terrorists to sue a cable TV company because a billing slip-up exposed their plot to kill thousands of people? Or someone planning a bank robbery? Or someone running a hydroponic marijuana farm in their basement?

Since adultery can have serious consequences - it can spread venereal disease, and it can lead to a man being fraudulently caused to support children under the belief that they are his children - it is not a victimless act. So rather than seeing any privacy rights pertaining to that act, many feel she should simply have the right to remain silent, as anything she may say can, and will, be used against her in a court of law.

It is true that adultery is not a criminal offence in many jurisdictions. And there are good reasons for this, so it is not really a bizarre anomaly that Parliament should hasten to correct, althoug sometimes it may seem like that to some.

[Anonymous Coward]

@ oh. my. dog

Another good way to get outed that I have from reliable sources:-

i) Tell wife you can't take her on a business trip

ii) Pack car with trade samples etc., and set off on trip

iii) Get photo taken in another part of country because you are exceeding the speed limit

iv) Photo and fine mailed to address of registered owner of car by forces of law and order

iv) Wife opens mail in case it's something important and looks at photo

v) Ex-wife sees ex-bestfriend in car with ex-husband.

Job done!

[Gene Cash]

Not really married?

Hey, when I'm married, and there's a bill sitting on the table, I damned well have a right to open it.

If there's a your bill/my bill situation, you're not married, you're roommates who fuck. There's a huge trust issue there before we even get to the affair part.

[James Hughes 1]

Not sure

if you are entitled to open it IF IT ISN'T ADDRESSED to you. Even if married. Would be interested to know the answer though.

[L1feless]

correct

You are correct.

[Liam Johnson]

Narrow definitions

Umm, that could also be interpreted as control freakery. Why do you think you have a right to know 100% of everything your spouse does. I thought you mentioned trust?? Shouldn't you trust that they do nothing wrong with the freedom you give them?

As for secrets, does that also include no surprise presents for the wedding aniversary or Christmas?

I don't think I have ever met a married couple who didn't have some sort of separate accounts, even if one is a biscuit tin in the kitchen. They work together as a team because they trust each other. Perhaps you should give it a go some time.

[LaeMing]

Not only in America

America is two continents. Canada takes up a significant portion of the northern one. A place called "The United States of America" takes up another big portion of it. Any country from Canada to Argentina is "only in America".

Island territories notwithstanding! The United States of America is not actually ONLY in America as Hawaii is not in America but is part of the United States of America, so The United States of America is MOSTLY in America.

You're welcome :-P

[John Savard]

America in English

The Americas are three continents, North, South, and Central America.

America is one country, the United States of America, just as Canada is the Dominion of Canada and Australia is the Commonwealth of Australia and so on.

In Spanish and French, the same word is used for "the Americas" and "America", leading to some confusion, but this is not the case in English.

[Phil 54]

Central America

is not a continent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, American

I'm sure its not what the first poster meant but....................

they are American. America is a continent, not a country. So a Canadian is an American, as would a Brazilian or Colombian etc etc.

[Rab Sssss]

Hope she wins

Then gets it taken away in the devorice selttlement...

[CyberCod]

She got what she deserved

If the sexes in this situation were reversed (ie. husband cheating) there would be NO one siding with the cheater.

Dumb broad needs to take responsibility for her actions. If she'd told her husband about the affair straight to his face and apologized, perhaps they could've reconciled. Finding out by accident? Thats just Karma.

[John Tserkezis]

As has been said before here on El Reg

"If you're going to cheat on your parter using technology, make sure YOU understand the technology better than they can."

Apparently, she couldn't fathom that combining your bills, means evidence of your indescretion is going to be within easy view of your other half.

A piece of paper too complicated for you dear?

[Alfred 2]

Trust - rights

I never open post addressed to my spouse, nor does she open mine. It's known as respecting the other person's rghts. You don't surrender these when you marry.

No you do not have the right to open any bills on the table if they are not addressed to you. You are committing an offence if you do so. You don't own your wirfe or her correspondence!

That said I haven't received any letters I'd want to hide from my wife, and I assume the converse is the case.

If I didn't trust my partner I think the marriage would effectively be over anyway.

Paris - because she know all about incvasion of privacy .....

[Phil 54]

The point seems to have been missed...

Rogers apparently bundled the mobile phone account (in HER maiden name) WITHOUT checkin with her first.

"In 2007, Gabriella Nagy had a cellphone account with Rogers which sent the monthly bill to her home address in her maiden name. Her husband was the account holder for the family's cable TV service at the same address. Around June 4, 2007, he called Rogers to add internet and home phone. The following month, Rogers mailed a “global” invoice for all of its services to the matrimonial home that included an itemized bill for Nagy's cellular service, according to the statement of claim filed in Ontario Superior Court of Justice."

and

"Nagy discovered how her husband found out after Rogers left her a voicemail, in late August 2007, advising that it was about to terminate her cellular services because of unpaid invoices. That’s when she learned Rogers had terminated her account in her maiden name and included it in the global account." from the Toronto Star Mon May 17 2010

[Jamie Jones]

FFS

"The incident eventually led to the woman at the centre of the case losing her job and requiring medical attention. She is seeking $600,000. ®"

The 'incident' that led to that was her bloody affair in the first place.

He could have found out many other ways - seeing them, a friend telling him.. Who would she have sued then?

Any $600,000 should go to the husband, FROM her. Evil bitch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Standard practice

to shift the blame away from the minor issue of the affair.

I suspected my ex wife was having an affair so registered online for her orange bill, opened the log in details in the post (early 2000's so they posted out the codes), logged in and discovered the number of the guy, tracked him down and then kicked her out.

She phoned orange to complain that her account had been compromised!

Its funny how its never there fault for having the actual affair!

Paris, shes blameless as well!