[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I didn't take his post to imply anything other than what you said, that the downside is anywhere near the upside. There just has to be accountability to make sure it doesn't get misused.

Agree, but this is always a difficult balancing act, because the more accountability - which in this case is a stand-in word for "burden of proof", or hurdles of satisfying people you're not lying - the more of that there is implemented, the more you're also making it harder for people who are in pretty dire straits to get out of them. And this is an area where there's already a ton of psychological and social disincentives to come forward.

It's just a mirror of the problem with sexual assault reporting generally.

You mention defamation; which would only apply if a couple was not "in" on it together. I think a situation that might be a concern is if a couple wanted out of a lease, if they used this clause to get out when there is no domestic violence.

I don't see this as realistic; put yourself in the guy's shoes. You and your girlfriend want out of a lease, and the way you're going to do it is have her accuse you of domestic abuse? And you're going to play along with that accusation? When do you back out of it; when the accusations become public? When the cops show up? What if you suddenly admit you were lying but your girlfriend (who apparently isn't any more honest than you are) won't renege? This plan seems like it could go very badly for you.

All in all, it seems far-fetched to me. It may be possible, but I am skeptical that it would actually be a loophole that would be exploited with any kind of frequency.

There should be a significant penalty for misusing this law. Not only for the damage to the landlord, but also to the credibility to anybody who legitimately needs this legislation.

I think the landlord is definitely put in a tough spot here. It's pretty hard to sue the alleged abuser, as you likely wouldn't know who it was and certainly would not be able to make your case. So the question becomes, is there a way to incorporate protections for landlords into this regime that don't go too far in defeating its purpose by discouraging people to use it? Or do we just accept that we're passing legislation that has the potential to really screw the occasional landlord out of some money, in order to help women avoid being assaulted or killed?