Toronto woman sues cellular provider Rogers for revealing affair, causing divorce

Toronto woman sues cellular provider Rogers for revealing affair, causing divorce

When Canadian cellular company Rogers Wireless Inc. bundled services for a married Canadian couple, former customer Gabriella Nagy says the consequences of that simple billing decision without her consent ruined her life.

Now Nagy’s suing the telecommunications provider for $600,000, alleging invasion of privacy and breach of contract. Nagy’s husband, whom she declined to identify to spare him further shame, was the main account holder for the couple’s cable tv account at their home address. The woman’s cell phone bills arrived separately and were addressed to her maiden name, until Nagy’s husband opted to add internet to the services provided by Rogers at that address. It is at that point, she says, the company took it upon themselves to bundle the couple’s services, granting Nagy’s spouse access to her cell phone bill and allowing him to learn of her affair:

When Nagy’s husband opened the Rogers invoice, he saw several hour-long phone calls to a single phone number.

“Nobody does business this way and he’s not stupid,” says Nagy, who is in her 30s. He called the number, spoke to the “third party” who confirmed the affair, which had lasted only a few weeks, Nagy told the Star.

“My husband didn’t tell me that’s how he found out, he just left.”

While it’s difficult to feel sympathy for Nagy- she did lie, cheat on her spouse and get caught doing it- should Rogers have treated her account with more discretion? Nagy feels that the global invoice issued by Rogers destroyed her life- costing her her marriage as well as her high paid job when the stress of her husband’s abandonment got to her:

Nagy is deeply embarrassed and ashamed about what happened. “It was a mistake,” she said of the affair. “But I didn’t deserve to lose my life over it.”

After her husband left her and their two children, ages 6 and 7, she was so distraught her work performance suffered and she lost her job as an apartment rental agent that had paid her almost $100,000 until she was let go in Oct. 10, 2007. “The plaintiff wept uncontrollably at her workplace . . . and became incapable of performing her employment duties,” reads the statement of claim.

Not surprisingly, Nagy’s husband is said to be less upset with the telecom:

When she confronted her husband, he said, “Thank god for the Rogers bill. Had it not come bundled in my cable service I would never known. That’s the only way,” Nagy says.

Rogers completely denies any responsibilities for the series of events that transpired after their “global invoice” arrived at the home Nagy shared with her husband and children in 2007, asserting:

“The marriage break-up and its effects happened, or alternatively would in any event have happened, regardless of the form in which the plaintiff and her husband received their invoices for Rogers services in July 2007.”

Which way do you think the ruling should go? Should Rogers have to pay up for revealing Gabriella Nagy’s affair?

Comments