Summary of Issue: After Moving

Decision A-1485.92 Full Text of Decision A-1485.92

Disentiled after 26 weeks. The present case falls squarely within the spousal exclusion in WHIFFEN. As in that case, claimant moved from Brandon, Man., to be with her husband whom she had recently married and whose residence and place of employment had been in Hudson Bay, Sask, for many years.

Decision 21825 Full Text of Decision 21825

Refer to: A-1485.92

Decision A-0261.93 Full Text of Decision A-0261.93

Claimant resigned from her job and moved from Vancouver to Sechelt to accompany her husband (who had obtained employment there) and their daughter. This case is one falling directly under the spousal exclusion referred to in WHIFFEN.

Decision 22377 Full Text of Decision 22377

Refer to: A-0261.93

Decision 21935 Full Text of Decision 21935

Refer to: A-1472.92

Decision A-1388.92 Full Text of Decision A-1388.92

Many months after leaving his job for health reasons, claimant moved from Edmonton to 100 Mile House where he had a relative. Comparison between the labour markets had to be made with respect to claimant's situation. This was not done here. The policy was applied blindly. The fact that Edmonton was obviously a much larger labour centre than the 100 Mile House area was no compelling proof that the claimant's chances of re-employment were, in his particular circumstances, significantly reduced.

Decision A-0209.93 Full Text of Decision A-0209.93

A few months after her last day worked, claimant moved with her invalid husband. This is not a case falling under the spousal exclusion referred to in WHIFFEN since claimant did not move to follow her husband. It was a wilful decision on her part. but policy is not to be applied automatically as here.

Decision A-1472.92 Full Text of Decision A-1472.92

The application of the policy leads to treating differently a claimant newly arrive in a particular area and a claimant long-established there, but only the former has positively acted in such a way as to bring new limitations to his or her chances of re-employment. The wilful move of a claimant to an area where his or her chances of re-employment are diminished is certainly one circumstance that ought to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of the new geographical restrictions he or she is now forced to place on his or her re-employment. Amendment to s. 28 limits the policy. When a spouse, because the unity of the family is at issue, has practically no choice but to move with the other spouse, the move cannot be seen as a wilful restriction and the policy can have no application. Claimant is then to be treated like others in the area. I consider to be within the power of the Commission to take as a factor directly going to availability the wilful moving of a claimant from a centre of greater to lesser employment opportunity and then to give the claimant who so moves a certain period of time to explore the new labour market. The fact that the new location was significantly less advantageous for eventual re-employment will have to be established. The burden will lie on the Commission. Comparison between the two labour markets must be made with respect to the claimant's situation. Policy not to be applied automatically.

Decision 21693 Full Text of Decision 21693

Refer to: A-1388.92

Decision 22342 Full Text of Decision 22342

Refer to: A-0209.93

Decision A-0878.82 Full Text of Decision A-0878.82

Left employment in Brantford, Ont. to move with husband to an Indian Reserve. No real employment opportunity. Loss of employment and difficulty in finding new employment for reasons entirely beyond control. Unable to say Umpire erred in fixing 2 months as reasonable time. As a matter of public policy, claimant's move (to accompany husband) must be regarded as one which she had no option but to make. This is more than good cause and personal reasons. Reasonable time to be allowed no matter how forlorn her chances of finding work.