| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
geographical area |
|
Summary:
It is a well-established rule, and one imposed by the legislation as well as by the most common understanding of what a sincere desire to work may imply, that a claimant who imposes unreasonable restrictions regarding the type of work sought or the acceptable area fails to prove availability.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
type of work |
|
Summary:
It is a well-established rule, and one imposed by the legislation as well as by the most common understanding of what a sincere desire to work may imply, that a claimant who imposes unreasonable restrictions regarding the type of work sought or the acceptable area fails to prove availability.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
suitability |
defined |
|
Summary:
It is to be noted that the notion of "suitable employment" in ss. 27(2) and (3) is defined in part with reference to the personal circumstances of the claimant and, more importantly still, that it is a notion that may vary as the period of unemployment is prolonged.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
Summary:
The general scheme of the UI Act is to provide insurance through a national pooling of the risks and costs of unemployment. It is argued that the system is first a social security legislation. I accept that the Act cannot be understood and implemented as if it was simply a private insurance scheme.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
definition |
|
Summary:
Parliament has established clearly in s. 14 that a claimant must be available but has left it at that. A definition of the concept is nowhere to be found. No doubt it was felt useless to add that availability was a question of fact to be considered on the basis of all the circumstances of each case.
Availability is usually described, in the case law, either as a sincere desire to work demonstrated by attitude and conduct and accompanied by reasonable efforts to find a job, or as a willingness to reintegrate the labour force under normal conditions without unduly limiting chances of work.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
geographical area |
after moving |
Summary:
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.
