"My husband caught me cheating, and is suing for a divorce - AND IT'S THE PHONE COMPANY'S FAULT!"

[kanicbird]

@t-bonham@scc.net

A married man who has an affair with a single woman is NOT guilty of adultery under this law. A married woman who has an affair with a single man IS guilty of adultery.

Unequal treatment of people because of their gender is the essence of sexism, to my mind. That’s what this law does.

(Older versions of this law made it even more clear: adultery was a crime against the husband, because it damaged the property value of his wife.)

A single woman who has a affair with a married man is not guilt of adultery under this law.

A single or married man who has a affair with a married woman is guilt of adultery.
I do agree with your end statement, the law views the woman as property of her husband the way it’s written.

[Malthus]

@Eats_Crayons

Hmm… Sounds like a “thin-skull rule” vs. “crumbling skull rule” type of thing.

Say I slap you in the face very, very gently, not knowing that you have a unique medical condition. Your entire jaw flies off your face! By the thin-skull rule, even though the damage was completely unforeseeable to me, my actions knocked the bottom of your face off and I’m liable. One could argue that Rogers screwed up, and though they couldn’t foresee the magnitude of the consequences, they are responsible.

Crumbling-skull takes the position that your jaw is already falling off your face and its completely inevitable that you will be jawless soon. I may have accelerated your Pez-dispenser look, but ultimately, there is no doubt at all that it would have happened anyway. Rogers made the break-up happen suddenly when the wife didn’t expect it, but one could argue that her actions could not be undone and divorce was inevitable.

Given the cost of litigation, the severity of the breach of privacy, and more significantly breach of contract (I can guarantee they have a published privacy policy even if Ontario doesn’t have the kind of privacy laws they do in BC), Rogers should just settle out of court and see if she’d take a lesser sum than what she’s demanding.

Where there is no local provincial privacy law, the federal Personal Information and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) applies.

Neither “thin skull” nor “crumbling skull” take into consideration whether the plaintiff herself is in any way at ‘fault’ for the damage. Yet that seems to me to be an important aspect of this fact situation.

Another analysis is that of “contributory negligence”, where a plaintiff is themselves (in part at least) the authour of their own misfortune. The issue in that case would be to apportion fault as between the alleged tortfeasor Rogers and the plaintiff for the damage - in this case, a marital breakup.

Assume for the sake of argument that the money value of that breakup is the full value of the $600,000 claim. Assume also that Rogers blundered and breached her privacy as alleged. What percentage of the damages are her ‘fault’ for having the affair in the first place, and what portion is the ‘fault’ of Roger’s blunder which inadvertantly revealed it?

I would be tempted to assign a rather low percentage of ‘fault’ to Rogers for the total damages, as clearly the plaintiff is, as it were, mainly the author of her own misfortune.