The following was prepared for publication by the Calgary Residential Rental Association (CRRA) :
"The proposed bill is titled “Residential Tenancies (Safer Spaces for Victims of Domestic Violence) Amendment Act, 2015”. You can view Bill 204 at
http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADD...egislature_29/session_1/20150611_bill-204.pdf
Bill 204 is an attempt to help the victims of domestic violence in Alberta.
We all support this goal. But, Bill 204 is flawed, and needs to be parked until full and meaningful stakeholder consultation can be held.
Please consider sending your MLA and Service Alberta Minister Danielle Larivee (
[email protected]) an email or letter with some/most/all of the following information, supplemented with your own thoughts on Bill 204 and the issue of domestic violence:
• The Calgary Residential Rental Association (CRRA) has over 1,000 members. About 70 percent of these are small landlords, with between one and 10 units.
• It’s common practice already for landlords to allow victims of abuse to break their lease.
• Bill 204 has potential to cause unintended consequences – i.e.: make victims of landlords – if it is passed in its current form.
• We all support measures that will reduce domestic violence in Alberta.
• Many of our members have housed victims of domestic violence and wish to see policy that protects them and calls abusers to account.
• Our members collectively have a wealth of experience in helping victims of domestic violence, but it seems all of our comments and concerns have been ignored up to this point.
• We understand other stakeholders have had the same experience. In fact the Alberta Residential Tenancies Advisory Committee - with members representing non profit housing, for profit housing, legal experts, and tenants - was not consulted at all.
Specific to the bill:
1. Section 47.3(4)(c) specifies that a landlord be compelled to apply security deposit paid towards payment of the rent. This is not the intent of security deposit; and, the use of the security deposit in this manner conflicts with Section 46(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act. Also, In the event there are damages to the property upon move-out, the landlord will have no remaining security deposit funds on hand to be compensated with.
We request this clause be struck from this legislative amendment, as it leaves landlords on the hook for damages to the property caused by tenants.
If tenants require emergency funding, numerous social agencies are available to assist. Landlords should not be compelled to pay this expense out of their own pockets.
2. Section 47.3(2)(a) specifies that a minimum of 28 days’ notice must be provided to terminate tenancy. Existing legislation stipulates that “a full tenancy month” notice must be provided. Consistency with existing requirements should be maintained, and as is done in some of the other provinces.
3. Overall, the entire process outlined in Section 47.4 (2)(a)(ii) is simply too broad and ripe for abuse. The only fair way to ensure the needs of landlords and victims of domestic violence are balanced is to strike this section from the legislation altogether and rely on the existing process of obtaining a protection order as outlined in 2(a)(i).
4. Section 47.4(3) lays out an expansive list of individuals who may provide a statement in support of a victim alleging domestic violence. This list is far too broad. For example, (c)(i) specifies any individual employed by a social services agency can provide a letter as long as they are authorized to. Without any guidance on necessary qualifications to establish this, we could see practically any individual issuing a statement in support of a certificate that would be issued by a delegated authority. As well, the landlord has no ability to confirm whether this individual was qualified to issue the certificate in the first place.
• There are no criteria established to determine what constitutes a risk to the safety of the tenant or dependents. With this being so objectively vague, there will be no consistency or clarity in how these rules are applied. Landlords deserve objectivity and fairness when these crucial matters are being adjudicated.
• There are no restrictions laying out what would constitute a conflict-of-interest in issuing a statement. As such, family members or close friends could be pressured into providing these statements without sufficient grounds to do so.
• No requirements are laid out for the rigour of the investigative process to be employed in issuing a statement. With there being no risk in issuing a statement and significant risk to failing to issue one in a case where it was warranted, our concern is all professions will revert to issuing statements when requested with no questions asked. Sadly, a complete lack of process and rigour in establishing when it is reasonable to issue one means this will be seen as an easy out for unscrupulous tenants seeking to circumvent the process.
5. Of great concern is section 47.6 which states that anyone issuing a certificate cannot be compelled to testify as to the evidence that warranted a certificate to be issued. This strips landlords of their right to have matters impacting their legal agreement with a tenant to be laid out for their consideration and review. It creates an opaque situation that shields these certificates from proper scrutiny, leaving landlords in the dark.
• The Bill serves to protect those who make a statement, as well as the Delegated Authority, from being compelled to give or produce evidence. Our legal system has enshrined within it the right of an accused to face his accuser. This right has been overlooked or ignored in this Bill.
Bill 204 was clearly conceived with the best of intentions; however, it has too many problems in its current form and is unlikely to actually help victims of domestic violence.
For this reason we do not support Bill 204 in its present form.
Members of the CRRA, however, would wholeheartedly support a thoughtful and holistic plan to protect and support the victims of domestic violence.
