Mobile companies are there to bring people together, but sometimes things get a bit out of control and bring people together in the wrong way.

Take the case of Gabrielle Nagy and cell phone provider Rogers of Canada. The Toronto Star tells of a complicated and troubling situation that had led to Nagy falling out with Rogers to such a extent that she is suing the company.

Taken under her maiden name, Nagy purchased a Rogers mobile and contract three years ago. Her husband also had a cable TV account with the same company and called to add a landline and internet service.

Wanting to be an efficient and competitive service, Rogers decided that this was a happy family of loyal customers who deserved to have one combined invoice for all the services they had purchased.

Perhaps excited at the success of sales in one household, the company allegedly sent that invoice to Mr Nagy. This turned out to not be the greatest result of good intentions.

I am sure you can all guess what came next as the invoice detailed all of Gabrielle’s phone calls. Mr Nagy observed some rather lengthy calls to an unknown number. Rapidly, an affair was confirmed, as was the departure of Nagy's husband from the marital home.

Her lawyer's "Statement of Claim" stated that Rogers "unilaterally terminated its cellular contract with the plaintiff that had been in her maiden name and included it in the husband's account that was under his surname."

The statement explained: "The plaintiff's maiden name and the husband's surname were different. Such unilateral action by the defendant was done without the knowledge, information, belief, acquiescence or approval of the plaintiff." Then, Mrs Nagy demanded $600,000 for invasion of privacy and breach of contract.

Relationships being as delicate as they are can be torn apart by the slightest hint or suggestion. So it comes as no surprise that Rogers is not exactly lying down and taking it.

In its Statement of Defence, the company contends that it "cannot be held responsible for the condition of the marriage, for the plaintiff's affair and consequential marriage break-up, nor the effects the break-up has had on her."

Our sympathies tend to lay with Rogers who argued that the couple should have appreciated the positives of the new billing system and saving them money by giving them a package deal. This brings us to that tricky grey area of responsibility and blame.

Nagy reveals that she was so distraught at the unfolding of events that she lost her job. Her husband reportedly (and unsurprisingly) walked out on her and her two children, aged 6 and 7.

She claims that her husband didn’t even reveal how he’d discovered the affair when he left and it was only following a subsequent communication from Rogers attempting to cut off her service that allowed her to pull the facts together.

And as if that wasn’t complicated enough, she reportedly says that her lover, who was also married, managed to call Rogers, and somehow get hold of her password. He then began to harass her and her estranged husband.

Bizarrely, Ontario, unlike other Canadian provinces, has no privacy act, so it will be interesting to see what Solomon-like decision the courts might apply to this rather sad and seemingly unnecessary state of affairs.