| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Left Regina to follow her friend to Quebec. Father-son relationship established de facto with her 4-year-old son. Changing location not within friend's control. Great distance not allowing commuting relationship. Started to cohabit after the move. Any other alternative than quitting not reasonable.**Moving to follow a "common-law partner" is also just cause for leaving employment: see CUBs 24562 and 25813A. To hold otherwise would be to discriminate against a person on the ground of marital status. Such discrimination is contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act.**In any event, I take "obligation" to mean no more than that the law and society favour the continuation and stability of the family unit. When spouses decide that it is in their economic interest to move, for example to take advantage of a promotion, leaving by the other spouse is with just cause.**It is argued that mobility rights in s. 6 of the Charter are infringed. The non-provision of UI benefits does not deny the claimant her right to move from Saskatchewan to Quebec. It does not deny her the right to take up residence in Quebec. Nor does it prevent her from earning a livelihood there.**Para. 28(4)(b) refers to an "obligation to accompany a spouse". This is a bit unclear. I have found no authority stating that there is an obligation on one spouse to accompany the other when that other chooses to move for employment purposes. Indeed this is relevant only when both spouses are employed.**Commission policy requires a relationship that has existed for one year or a child of the union. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the one-year requirement is appropriate. See CUBs 24562 and 25577. It is not clear to me that the jurisprudence has finally decided this issue yet.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
applicability |
|
Summary:
The fact that claimant did not search for employment before she left Regina to move to Quebec is not significant in this case. She did not do so because the distance between the two places is so great. To seek alternate employment before leaving is not required when it is impractical to do so.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
charter |
|
Summary:
I interpret s. 57 of the Federal Court Act as requiring notice before a section of the Act or a regulation is declared invalid, inapplicable or inoperable. It does not require notice before argument is heard, nor does it require notice if none of those results will follow.
One can understand why s. 57 was added to the Federal Court Act. The government does not wish to lose constitutional cases by default, for example as a result of a lack of an opportunity to prepare a proper evidentiary base for a case. But, one wonders if there is not a better solution than s. 57.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
marriage and move |
|
Summary:
The Commission's position has always been that if the marriage is reasonably imminent, just cause for leaving in order to move to a new geographical location will be found. The Commission does not demand that just cause exist only when an individual leaves employment the day after the marriage.
