Bill allowing victims of domestic violence to break their lease passed in AB

[rubecube]

Remember Deborah Drever? Turns out she might not be so useless after all. Also good on the legislature as a whole to not try and dick around with a bill like this. Nice to see the vote was unanimous.

http://www.newstalk770.com/2015/12/0...third-reading/

In a rare move, the Alberta legislature has unanimously voted to pass third reading for a private member’s bill that could make it easier for victims of domestic violence to escape abuse in Alberta.

Bill 204, introduced by former NDP member and now independent MLA Deborah Drever in November, will allow tenants affected by domestic violence to break their lease early without any financial penalty.

Shannon Phillips, the minister responsible for the Status of Women, said, “Bill 204 will help ensure that survivors of domestic violence are safe and have the supports they need to maintain their independence.”

A lease may be terminated if a tenant receives a statement from a certified professional verifying domestic violence has occurred. The legislation will be proclaimed after consultation and drafting of supporting regulations with key stakeholders including landlords, tenants, and women’s organizations.

[Northendzone]

seems like a good bill for the legislature to pass

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Good call.

Just wondering if anyone knows - who's the certified professional from whom the statement is required? And in what form?

[heep223]

Fantastic. Great timing too.

[peter12]

A certified professional must be a registered psychologist or social worker.

[Travis Munroe]

I am all for and love the idea as long as the punishment for lying is extreme. Actually quite neat to see AB take a lead on this.

Leaving a landlord with a vacant property in December could end up costing them 10,000 or much worse.

I am not comparing the severity of some financial losses for a landlord to victims of domestic abuse what so ever.I do believe it is important to understand the implications across the board and make sure those DA victims are getting the help they need while preventing some phony reports to get out of a lease.

[TurdFerguson]

A new lease on life, so to speak.

[Huntingwhale]

Good job NDP?

[CaptainCrunch]

Good job independent MLA.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

I am all for and love the idea as long as the punishment for lying is extreme. Actually quite neat to see AB take a lead on this.

Let's play this out, because my reaction is, the likelihood of someone lying about this just to get out of their lease is relatively low. It would require a heck of a fabrication, and in itself if you're lying about something like this you're already defaming someone which leaves you open to a lawsuit.

On the flip side, this makes it easier for people who are being abused to get out of situations where they're being abused.

I just don't see the downside as being anywhere near the upside. Am I wrong / have I missed something?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Good job independent MLA.

Yup, it really is. Deborah Drever could have showed up, collected a paycheck and finish out the term as a well paid joke. Instead she introduces this bill which could improve the life of many victims of domestic violence.

Good for her.

[CaptainCrunch]

Trust me, I wasn't being sarcastic, she's now exceeded my expectations for her by 2936 times my original expectations

.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Let's play this out, because my reaction is, the likelihood of someone lying about this just to get out of their lease is relatively low. It would require a heck of a fabrication, and in itself if you're lying about something like this you're already defaming someone which leaves you open to a lawsuit.

On the flip side, this makes it easier for people who are being abused to get out of situations where they're being abused.

I just don't see the downside as being anywhere near the upside. Am I wrong / have I missed something?

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. 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. 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.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

I am all for and love the idea as long as the punishment for lying is extreme. Actually quite neat to see AB take a lead on this.

Leaving a landlord with a vacant property in December could end up costing them 10,000 or much worse.

I am not comparing the severity of some financial losses for a landlord to victims of domestic abuse what so ever.I do believe it is important to understand the implications across the board and make sure those DA victims are getting the help they need while preventing some phony reports to get out of a lease.

I agree on both sides.

I think its a brilliant idea to allow people to break their leases due to abusive relationships, a great idea, I also think that with the requirement of endorsement by a psychologist or other registered professional the likelihood of lying or other fabrication is quite low.

Without more extensive details I have to think that this one is a slam-dunk win for all concerned.

[Ducay]

Good intentions and motivation behind the bill, but lordy, can't wait for this to be abused (no pun) by every low life poor renter. They just got a get out of jail free card.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

I am all for and love the idea as long as the punishment for lying is extreme. Actually quite neat to see AB take a lead on this.

Leaving a landlord with a vacant property in December could end up costing them 10,000 or much worse.

I am not comparing the severity of some financial losses for a landlord to victims of domestic abuse what so ever.I do believe it is important to understand the implications across the board and make sure those DA victims are getting the help they need while preventing some phony reports to get out of a lease.

I guess it is about the equivalent about someone being off on medical leave.
You kind of need to trust the health care professional to do the ethical thing, since the result would be some sort of loss of ability to do their job. Losing accreditation? Getting fired? What would happen to a doctor in that situation?

[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?

[DFO]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Good intentions and motivation behind the bill, but lordy, can't wait for this to be abused (no pun) by every low life poor renter. They just got a get out of jail free card.

Wouldn't the scumbag renters just keep doing what they do now - which is nothing? They just pack up and buggar off leaving the landlord to piss in wind in terms of small claims court and the like.

[ken0042]

I'd like to hope that as long as the person substantiating the claim is a professional (police office, psychologist, etc) then it shouldn't be an issue.

I guess the other question, (and I'll make the man be the abuser in this example), do both parties get out of the lease, or just the woman?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Actually, after thinking about this, it occurs to me that any dishonest use of this legislation in order to get out of a lease would breach s.380 of the Criminal Code. In other words, it's criminal fraud. It would be really hard to get a conviction, but nonetheless, I'm pretty sure it would meet the threshold.