There is no expectation of privacy when going to court unless it's a young offender, sex crime or if there is a publication ban. Court proceedings are public.
Last edited:
Woman sues Rogers for revealing her affair
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
There is no expectation of privacy when going to court unless it's a young offender, sex crime or if there is a publication ban. Court proceedings are public.
I don't know how it is in Ontario but here in BC, I can go on line and pay $6.00 to find out pretty much anything I want regarding anything before the courts. If I want to go all the way downtown to the Court House, I can look it up for free. I've tracked all my ex daughter-in-laws wrong doings and her boyfriends wrong doings. Once you are on the site page, you can check out as much as you want. Once you leave it, you pay again. Without ever speaking to anyone, I know exactly when her next court date is.
That's what got me the most... the amount she's suing for..... clearly in any other situation where they merged two accounts into one due to address similarities, there'd probably be a free months service or some sort of refund coming back to them for compensation..... but for the amount she's asking for, she's clearly putting the entire blame of heir marriage ending completely on Rogers and expects them to take responsibility for her own stupid actions.
If she had a brain, she would have stuck to messenger programs without recorded message history, but she didn't, she had her own cell phone, and she talked for hours to one guy on a listed phone number on her bill and on her cell phone call history.
If the husband was curious enough (which he clearly seemed to be by calling the number himself) he could have found one of her past bills in the trash, or got ahold of her cell phone while she was in the shower and checked the call log..... in fact I can think of a few other ways already.
I'm not a big Rogers fan in the first place, but what really gets my goat on this subject is her complete incompetence of not seeing her own responsibility in this matter..... regardless if it was for a day, a week, a few weeks or a couple of years..... she Cheated..... and because she cheated, her husband she clearly didn't give a crap about walked out on her and her children (I say hers, not theirs, because if I was in his shoes, I begin to question the validity of my genetic involvement of those children).... and she lost her job because she couldn't hack being exposed and losing everything she never deserved in the first place.
But she clearly thinks she still deserves it all, because "It was only for a couple of weeks", she no longer has a sucker of a husband to take care of the kids while she goes and screws around behind his back, and is now looking to sue rogers for over half a million dollars.... which would of course give her a comfy living and probably can afford someone to look after her kids while she goes and skanks up the town some more.
People who can't accept responsibility for their own actions Pee me off to no end.
BC Rules on names:
Reverting To A Maiden Surname Or Previous Married Name
Reverting To A Maiden Surname Or Previous Married Name
- After marriage, you can choose to continue using your own surname, or you can start using your spouse's surname. Changing to your spouse's surname does not constitute a legal change of name under the Name Act.
- A spouse by marriage may use the surname he or she had immediately before the marriage, the surname he or she had at birth or by adoption, or the surname of his or her spouse by marriage.
- Please note: A Change of Name would be necessary to combine or hyphenate surnames.
- Individuals who decide to revert to their original surname at a later date do not need to apply for a Change of Name.
- In the case of divorce or a person just wanting to revert to a previous name, they may choose: their married surname; their previous married surname; or, their name at birth. To change your identification, please contact each agency directly to obtain the necessary requirements on making the requested change.
In Ontario:
Under the Change of Name Act, you may elect to resume the surname that you had immediately before the marriage. The Act used to require the decision to be made within 90 days of the dissolution of the marriage, either by divorce, annulment, or death of the former spouse. This 90-day requirement, however, is to be struck from the legislation, enabling you in the future to change back to your maiden name at any time, regardless of the date of the marriage.
In order to do so, you must complete a Form 2 "Election to Resume Former Surname" and pay a $25 fee. These forms are available through, and must be submitted to, the Office of the Registrar General. The application must include a copy of your birth certificate, any previous change-of-name certificates, divorce certificate, and any other information required on the Form 2. Any divorce certificate not written in English or French must be translated into English or French together with the translator's written declaration.
Under certain circumstances, you may be required to provide the Registrar General with a police records check. This would apply in the following circumstances:
Under the Change of Name Act, you may elect to resume the surname that you had immediately before the marriage. The Act used to require the decision to be made within 90 days of the dissolution of the marriage, either by divorce, annulment, or death of the former spouse. This 90-day requirement, however, is to be struck from the legislation, enabling you in the future to change back to your maiden name at any time, regardless of the date of the marriage.
In order to do so, you must complete a Form 2 "Election to Resume Former Surname" and pay a $25 fee. These forms are available through, and must be submitted to, the Office of the Registrar General. The application must include a copy of your birth certificate, any previous change-of-name certificates, divorce certificate, and any other information required on the Form 2. Any divorce certificate not written in English or French must be translated into English or French together with the translator's written declaration.
Under certain circumstances, you may be required to provide the Registrar General with a police records check. This would apply in the following circumstances:
- where you have been convicted of a criminal offence, except where a pardon has been granted;
- where you have been found guilty of a criminal offense and discharged, except where the Criminal Records Act (Canada) requires that the record be purged;
- where you have been found guilty under the Young Offenders Act (Canada), except an offence where the Act requires that the record be destroyed;
- where you have outstanding law enforcement orders against you, including a warrant, prohibition order, restraining order, driver's license suspension, probation order, or parole order of which you are aware; and
- where you have any pending criminal charges against you of which you are aware.
I recall a discussion that detailed the ability of anyone to have/adopt an assumed name (alias), I believe that the difference in this case is that the lady entered into a recognized legal agreement with Rogers. For the purpose of clarity (and possible future actions), that contract would require that woman's legally accepted identification - no different than a driver's license or the deed to a home/car.
I don't see how this case would make past a preliminary hearing in a court setting. I'm guessing that her lawyer knows this and is hoping to generate as much bad press as possible and shame Roger's into settling this quickly and quietly.
I don't see how this case would make past a preliminary hearing in a court setting. I'm guessing that her lawyer knows this and is hoping to generate as much bad press as possible and shame Roger's into settling this quickly and quietly.
Probably the case, but I think in the end, the only person that's going to be shamed it this clown who cheated on her husband.
My thoughts exactly. I can't believe she chose to expose her name to the public in an attempt to win what will likely be in the hundreds of dollars at most, unless she's so deluded as to believe she could actually win the $600,000 dollars she's requesting. What was her lawyer thinking by the way?
Either that or she's so distraught by what happened that she's not thinking straight and reacting strictly on emotional impulse. That would be a reasonable assumption seeing that those are the traits of adultery after all.
Another point. If she actually cared about saving her marriage, she'd be focusing on that right now rather than trying to swindle money out of Rogers. How's her husband supposed to interpret this action of hers? Instead of trying to mend the marriage, she's planning to go it alone. That sends him a pretty clear message that she's done with him, only making things even worse for herself and further reducing the chances that he'll go back to her. Even if only for the sake of her children you would think she'd be focusing on mending the marriage. This just reinforces the low regard she has for her husband and her children. To be willing to drag her name through the mud in court for money also shows the low regard she has for her parents and the rest of her family, and her friends. What is this woman thinking? Do be prepared to throw everything out the window like that is either stupid, careless, desperate, or some combination thereof.
Oh come on Risus. Rogers did invade her privacy. Certainly they could give her a free month's service with a smile:lol:
Rogers did do something wrong. She had her own service, with her cell phone, in her name only. When he signed up with separate services with the same company, they had no business combining the bills, because the services were totally separate, regardless of the last name on the bill. She had her service with Rogers, first, she was entitled to her bill being in her name only, in a separate envelope. Granted she was a cheating tramp, and she deserves everything bad that's going to come her way, but that's a separate issue. I live with my parents, I have cable internet with a company, and they have cable TV with the same company, our bills come separately, not together, that is the point.
I fully agree, and on that note they ought to wave any charges that appeared on that invoice and she ought to be free to walk out of that contract at any time for the duration of that contract without any penalty; or some other similar compensation.
But $600,000? That's clearly not intended to cover just for invasion of privacy. She clearly hopes to get compensation for her error too. So yes, I hope she wins the few hundred dollars she may be entitled to in compensation. But that's a far cry from $600,000.
Here's the thing. Regardless of whether or not we believe she "deserved" it or not.... It appears the husband may never have known about her "indescretion" if it had not been for Rogers blatant act of disregarding her privacy. With that in mind, I don't think the 600k is out of line at all.
But had she not been cheating on her husband, the only damage caused by this would have been minor emotional distress owing to the principle of Rogers having invaded her privacy. On that front, they violated their agreement with her and so she is entitled to compensation and the freedom to annul the contract without penalty should she wish to do so.
However, her affair is what caused the fallout to be far graver than simple minor emotional distress on principle. While Rogers ought to take responsibility for its actions, so should she for hers. Probably a few hundred dollars, or certainly no more than a few thousand at most I'd guess.
And it's not a question of whether she 'deserved' it, but rather of whether Rogers ought to pay for her mistakes. Sure it made a mistake, but her mistake compounded the consequences much further. So yes, Rogers ought to take responsibility for its actions, but no more than that.
Yes, Rogers was remiss. But it's really hard to be very sympathetic. Rogers didn't ruin her life, she did.
Praxius said….. “clearly in any other situation where they merged two accounts into one due to address similarities”…..
I have a ‘boarder’ at my home, if any company ever combined our bills because we have the same address I would be angry and looking for compensation of some sort, a change back to separate bills with no charges applied to do so. (and a month or 2 of free services would be nice too). btw, I don’t use Roger’s, I use Telus.
I have a ‘boarder’ at my home, if any company ever combined our bills because we have the same address I would be angry and looking for compensation of some sort, a change back to separate bills with no charges applied to do so. (and a month or 2 of free services would be nice too). btw, I don’t use Roger’s, I use Telus.