| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
accompany his/her partner |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was denied benefits as he voluntarily left his employment without just cause within the meaning of sections 29 and 30 of the Act. He stated that he left his employment to accompany his partner to Kamloops. It is noted they had not lived together; they had been in a relationship for just over seven months. The law is clear, notwithstanding the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to which the claimant alluded, in order to establish a common law relationship, one must fall within the parameters of the section of the Act which defines “common law partner”: "common-law partner", in relation to an individual, means a person who is cohabiting with the individual in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
Definition of common-law partner |
|
Summary:
The claimant was denied benefits as he voluntarily left his employment without just cause within the meaning of sections 29 and 30 of the Act. He stated that he left his employment to accompany his partner to Kamloops. It is noted they had not lived together; they had been in a relationship for just over seven months. The law is clear, notwithstanding the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to which the claimant alluded, in order to establish a common law relationship, one must fall within the parameters of the section of the Act which defines “common law partner”: "common-law partner", in relation to an individual, means a person who is cohabiting with the individual in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
