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

[Jason14h]

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.

Of course it would be fraud. But no one ever commits fraud! Especially to save $$$

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Of course it would be fraud. But no one ever commits fraud! Especially to save $$$

It's probably better we just don't pass any new laws at all.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Of course it would be fraud. But no one ever commits fraud! Especially to save $$$

Just leaving and forcing the landlord to try to collect is easier than committing fraud.

So in this situation is it designed to cover a couple who both have names on the lease and the abused party wants out and can leave without reprocession. In this case the abuser would still be on the lease.

If an abused person is the sole person on the lease would this apply. Or would typical devices like a restraining order be used first.

Overall likely a good idea to remove barriers to getting out of an abusive relationship. Is this identified as an issue that prevents victims from leaving?

[REDVAN]

I originally thought this was dumb- basically providing renters with another way to weasel out of paying their rent...

however, if you think about it, this gives a victim who for example has a restraining order, a way to leave their current residence without any financial penalties (landlords aren't always nice)- so when they find a new place sooner, hopefully the abuser can't find them.

All in all I think it is a good idea, but I still worry that this will punish landlords. Not all landlords are rich, and so this could really hurt the landlord if the renters miss-use this new law.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

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.

They would

A : Have to convince a professional
B : Probably break the lease anyways

Time will tell...

[Reaper]

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.

A fair point but for someone to simply use bill 204 to get out of a lease someone would have to put forth an awful lot of effort and deception. It would be easier to pull a midnight move.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Good job independent MLA.

Lots of rumblings that this bill was given to her as a measure to grow up and actually get in touch with what being a MLA is about.

Doesn't really matter though, its a great bill.

Somewhat surprised something like this didn't exist already to be honest.

[calgaryblood]

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.

I highly doubt someone will risk criminal charges from lying to the police to break their lease. Usually low lifes like that will break it anyways.

[llwhiteoutll]

Using this legislation improperly to get out of a lease should result in fraud charges against the tenants and a review of the doctor who signed off on the paperwork.

If its used legitimately, then the abuser should be on the hook for the remaining portion of the victims lease, payable to the landlord.

[Travis Munroe]

All I was trying to make a point of is ensuring that the policy to get your professional letter is not as easy as seeing said professional for a 30 minute appointment and walking out with a letter to break the lease.

Jack and Jill are dating and living together, they have basically broken up but both owe obligations to the lease, Jack or Jill gets their letter within 30 minutes and their damage deposit back and off they go their separate ways, never speaking to each other again.

Should the police not be involved in one way or another? Perhaps it is easier to get the letter if police have been called to the home before or are aware of ongoing disputes.

[Johnny199r]

As someone who has been a criminal defence lawyer and prosecutor, this law will be very, very interesting.

What standard of proof are they using for the professional? They must believe there has been domestic violence on a balance of probabilities or beyond a reasonable doubt? I know there are good social workers out there, but there are some ridiculously stupid ones too, a lot of them.

I personally think this law will get abused.

[normtwofinger]

Good for Drever. Now if only she would reply to constitute emails and phone calls.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by ken0042

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.

Originally Posted by ken0042

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?

Just addressing your post regarding the use of the word couple.

You would be surprised at the number of women that are fleeing homes where the abuser is their children.

[calf]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

If its used legitimately, then the abuser should be on the hook for the remaining portion of the victims lease, payable to the landlord.

I agree with this...make the abuser pay. However, as a landlord, I would be more than happy to throw the scumbag out.

[photon]

I'm kind of torn, I mean as a landlord I probably would do this without the law in this kind of scenario, but making it law like this places the burden of the cost of a general societal policy on the landlord.

If the government is going to require it, ideally the government should step in and pay any gap that results from this happening (since it's something society is deciding to do rather than a financial cost due to normal renting activities). Treat it like people that break their leases currently; the landlord is responsible to make every effort to re-rent the property and the government would only be responsible for the gap.

In the future landlords should ensure that ALL adults living in a property are on the rental agreement and it's explicit that each adult is 100% responsible for the agreement. I already try to do this, but I'll be going to go over my existing contracts and checking them.

Then if this happens and one spouse leaves, the other spouse is still responsible for the agreement.