Decision 74393
Full Text of Decision 74393
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The claimant established a claim for benefits effective May 3, 2008. The claimant left her job to accompany her spouse, who is in the military and was moving to Winnipeg. She stated that she was actively searching for employment in Winnipeg; however, that she was not available for employment there until they complete the move at the end of July 2009. In the present case the claimant repeatedly disclosed her non availability...Due to her circumstances; she is not actively searching for immediate opportunities of employment as required by the legislation. The Commission determined that the claimant did not qualify for benefits because of her non-availability. The appeal by the commission is allowed.
Decision 66030
Full Text of Decision 66030
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claiment left her job in Nova Scotia to be with her fiancé. The couple had not live together before and they plan to marry in two years. Relying on CUBS 51375, 52816, 54025, 55392, 55511, 57053, 57337 and 57229, the Umpire concluded that the issue appears to be whether the couple had definite or imminent plans to marry. In those decisions,the couples definite plans to marry in six months were held to be just cause for the claimant leaving her employment to be with her fiancé.
Decision 65418
Full Text of Decision 65418
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The Board of Referees erred in law when they used the notion of "stability in the relationship" as a substitute for "common law relationship".
Decision 64224
Full Text of Decision 64224
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Had the claimant been in a common-law relationship, he would have had just cause for quitting his job to return to his house and his partner, under section 29(c)(ii) of the EI Act.
Decision A-0673.02
Full Text of Decision A-0673.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The claimant was disqualified for quitting her employment in order to join her fiancé in the states. The Court agreed with the Board of Referees and the Umpire that the claimant had not established a spousal relationship within the meaning of the EI Act and concluded that leaving her employment was not her only reasonable option.
Decision 57053
Full Text of Decision 57053
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The BOR erred in law when it determined that the claimant moved to Gilliam to establish a common law union which, it determined, amounted to just cause. The parties must have lived together in a conjugal relationship for one year, under the legislation, for the relationship to be the equivalent of a marriage.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
marriage and move |
|
Decision 55300
Full Text of Decision 55300
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant had a permanent employment and her spouse was unemployed. Claimant left her job in Ontario to accompany her spouse who was going to a seasonal employment (10-week duration) in New-Brunswick. No indication that the move would be permanent: the possibility was considered but no decision had been made. In fact, they did move back to Ontario. Held that at the time of the move, the claimant was the only spouse who was employed and providing financial support for the couple. Claimant should not have jeopardized that without the firm indication that there was no alternative to her moving at that time.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 55392
Full Text of Decision 55392
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0673.02
Decision 53102
Full Text of Decision 53102
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
No spousal relationship of any kind existed prior to the claimant leaving her employment. They had in fact decided to begin such a relationship. To accept that a decision to relocate to begin cohabitation with a person with whom a romantic relationship has begun would be to unreasonably stretch the notion of an obligation to accompany a spouse.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision A-0784.99
Full Text of Decision A-0784.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The FCA simply dismissed the application for judicial review without any explanations. In light of the very brief decision, there were no grounds to seek leave to appeal at the Supreme Court.
Decision 46868A
Full Text of Decision 46868A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit to follow her 8-month common-law partner. She argued that had she married she would only have to be married one day to have just cause for leaving employment. She felt that the Reg. were discriminatory. Umpire agreed with claimant but was satisfied that the law was stated for a good reason. It demands a sufficient commitment to permit persons to utilize the benefits and obligations of the law. Marriage is a formal commitment and does not require a time element.
Decision 49011
Full Text of Decision 49011
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit to move to Brampton to be with fiancée. No common law relationship established prior to moving. No children involved and no proposed marriage date until 11 months later. BOR was of the view that the situation was similar to a person moving to get married and allowed the appeal. In reference to Tanguay (A-1458.84), the Umpire found that claimant had not exhausted all reasonable alternatives available to her prior to leaving her employment. Commission's appeal was allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
moving |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 47599
Full Text of Decision 47599
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
In the summer of 1997, claimant's wife gave him an ultimatum that if the relationship was to continue he would need to work around home instead of up North. He left before Christmas 1997 to return home to go to school and he did not request leave before leaving. Claimant decided not to return to work, alleging the necessity to follow a spouse and also take a course of study. Disqualification imposed for having left his employment without just cause. Decision upheld by Umpire. Claimant initially took the position while fully aware that it would mean living away from his wife. It cannot retroactively be good cause for him to leave in order to relocate with her without showing he had no other alternative.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
moving |
|
Decision 46922
Full Text of Decision 46922
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left her employment in La Baie to move to Quebec City to be with her boyfriend. BOR decided that she had just cause for leaving to be with her spouse. Umpire decided that BOR mistakenly considered the claimant's boyfriend to be a spouse although she had never lived with him and she was not married to him. The claimant's departure was a purely personal decision and there is nothing to indicate that this was the only reasonable alternative in her case.
Decision 46356
Full Text of Decision 46356
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
In August 1998, claimant moved from Pennetang to Barrie to live with her fiancee who had obtained a job. They had been living together for approximately 7 months and it was their intention to marry in 1999. Claimant stated that she was not able to commute as she does not possess a driver's license. Referring to CUB 27800, the Umpire ruled that although the claimant and her fiancee do not have a child, there was evidence of a committed relationship. The Commission appealed to the FCA.**NOTA: The Commission was of the view that there were no facts on file to suggest that a long term relationship existed prior to the claimant and her fiancee living together and that they had only lived together for a mere 7 months. Case appealed to seek jurisprudence to support the Commission's 12-month policy.
Decision 45471
Full Text of Decision 45471
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left job in April 98 in order to move to live with her fiancé. They planned to marry in December 98. She had been commuting on weekends and holidays for over 11 months. The BOR found that claimant meets the definition of common-law relationship and that the VL was justified. The Umpire refused to interfere. The Commission did not appeal the case to the FCA since the notion of "no other reasonable alternative" was not covered.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
marriage and move |
|
Decision 42390A
Full Text of Decision 42390A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Living in Toronto, the claimant and her husband mutually agreed to purchase a home in Barrie. Claimant quit because of difficulties to commute daily and was disqualified for having left her job without just cause. Disqualification upheld by BOR. Found that the decision to relocate was purely personal, not necessitated by a spousal job transfer and that there was no urgent or compelling reason to quit until all alternatives were considered.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
moving |
|
Decision 44504
Full Text of Decision 44504
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left her job in Victoriaville to go and live with her boyfriend in Montreal. Leaving without just cause. Appeal allowed by BOR, given that she and her boyfriend had spent every weekend and holiday together for the past 2 years, and could thus be considered spouses. Error according to the Umpire. Claimant did not have spousal status within the meaning of the Act and the case law when she left her job.
Decision 41254A
Full Text of Decision 41254A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left her job because she became engaged to a man who lived one and one-half hours away from her residence and moved to his residence to live with him. Umpire concluded that the reasons she provided for leaving her job do not meet the definition of just cause. She provided nothing more than what may be described as a good personal reason.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
moving |
|
Decision 43012
Full Text of Decision 43012
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Clmt quit her job to establish a common-law relationship with her partner to another location. Moving in anticipation of an imminent marriage is just cause. Moving in anticipation to a common-law relationship is not considered just cause for leaving employment.
Decision 42653
Full Text of Decision 42653
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Clmt quit her job to accompany her husband. It was not unreasonable to require that she commute between her new place of residence and her work (about 40 minutes) while looking for another job near her home.
Decision 39289
Full Text of Decision 39289
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Quit her job to relocate with her common-law spouse. Claimant explained that they lived together on weekends from April, 1995 to December 1995. Umpire concluded that it cannot be said that claimant was living with her boyfriend since they were living in two separate cities and only spent weekends together for a period of 9 months. Jurisprudence is constant on this issue and the concepts of "just cause and "no reasonable alternative" must apply.
Decision 38930
Full Text of Decision 38930
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Common law relationship for 8 months. Commission policy in keeping with other federal and provincial statutes, recognizes persons who have lived common law for one year as being spouses for the purpose of the Act. Umpire stated that although the Commission may implement policy in support of its discretionary power, such policy cannot be applied blindly or automatically. Concluded it was reasonable to leave her job to accompany her common law spouse, due to distance and intention to marry.
Decision 38048
Full Text of Decision 38048
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
When one spouse who is no longer working, relocates in order to establish a new business and once again become gainfully employed, the leaving of employment by the other spouse in order to keep the family together constitutes just cause, especially when the family has, due to economic necessities, been required to remain apart for a period of time.
Decision A-0633.96
Full Text of Decision A-0633.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left employment to accompany her spouse to another region. The spouse was not assured of another job. Claimant disqualified. According to the Umpire, the evidence did not establish the need for her to accompany her spouse: it was instead a personal decision. Appeal summarily dismissed by the FCA.
Decision 36777
Full Text of Decision 36777
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Left her employment to join and live with her friend. It was found that the concept of spouse, for the purpose of paragraph 28(4)(b), involves co-habiting with a person and not only taking steps to co-habit. In this case, the evidence did not show that the claimant had a spouse at the time she left her employment. Rather, she went to join her friend with a view to cohabiting with him.
Decision A-0535.96
Full Text of Decision A-0535.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant had stayed for another 9 months in Saskatoon after her common law spouse of 8 months had moved to Moncton. Considering the distance factor, found by Umpire that it was virtually impossible for the claimant to conduct a job search. The BOR has failed to properly address the issue of whether having regard to all the circumstances (distance between both localities) the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving her employment. FCA refused to interfere.
Decision A-0765.95
Full Text of Decision A-0765.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Quit job in 02-94 in order to be able to benefit from a severance package. Reason for accepting the buy-out was that she would be moving in 06-94 to be with her husband. FCA stated that if a claimant leaves his or her job early, that is, at a date which is not within reasonable proximity to the date of the event which represents just cause for v.l. then, in the absence of a separate just cause, claimant is barred from receiving benefits by virtue of ss. 28(1) of the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
monetary considerations |
|
Decision 34440
Full Text of Decision 34440
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Requirement that a common-law relationship must have been in existence for a year before it will be treated as a spousal relationship is a policy decision only. That circumstance is only one of many situations in which good cause for leaving employment will be found. **NOTE: No appeal was pursued in this case as the Commission found that the fact-finding as to the possibility of another job was incomplete. Also, all circumstances must be canvassed in determining whether the claimant had explored all other reasonable alternatives before leaving employment.
Decision 34376
Full Text of Decision 34376
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
No longer a requirement that urgency be demonstrated in a decision to leave employment. The test is one that requires an evaluation of all the circumstances, of which the existence of any of the circumstances described in par.28(4) is only one facet. No reasonable alternative open to claimant.
Decision 28343
Full Text of Decision 28343
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0466.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision A-0466.95
Full Text of Decision A-0466.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Moved from Ontario to N.B. after husband's layoff. Umpire not concerned whether decision to move made alone or agreed upon by both spouses. The FCA found that neither the BOR nor the Umpire had failed to consider "all the circumstances" as the law obliged them to do.
Claimant quit job and moved from Ontario to N.B. after husband's layoff. The FCA stated that although it might be a relevant circumstance to be considered, there was no absolute requirement under par.28(4)(b) that the spouse whom the claimant accompanies have obtained employment at the new location.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 28982
Full Text of Decision 28982
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0650.95
Decision A-0650.95
Full Text of Decision A-0650.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Policy of the CEIC founded in jurisprudence that a claimant does not show just cause unless the spouse has relocated for employment acknowledged by Umpire. Appeal nonetheless allowed considering the particular circumstances as no reasonable alternative found to be open to claimant. Upheld by FCA.
Decision 30544
Full Text of Decision 30544
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Leave of absence requested to relocate from Red Deer to Winnipeg to accompany husband who was moving to attend biblical training. Leave started June 14 and claimant was married on June 18. Just cause shown: newly married and training only available in Winnipeg.
Decision 30435
Full Text of Decision 30435
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
When one spouse voluntarily moves to a new geographical location, without compelling reason to do so, there is no obligation on the other to accompany. When one spouse remains employed the obligation is on the other spouse to stay in the area where the one spouse already has employment.
Decision 30280
Full Text of Decision 30280
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left his job to relocate with his wife who was moving to Winnipeg to return to school. In compliance with s. 28(4), just cause found. It may well be that the Board also determined that he had no reasonable alternative, but it was not necessary in my view for them to have gone further.
Decision 29980
Full Text of Decision 29980
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left her job to care for her boyfriend's daughter. Claimant lived with boyfriend for approximately 13 months off and on during last 4 years. Has not lived with boyfriend for the last 12 months consecutively. Common law relationship not established. Para. 28(4)(b) not met.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Decision 24110A
Full Text of Decision 24110A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Their relationship was maintained for 6 months and falls short of the 12-month requirement. Furthermore, their family circumstances do not clearly favour a finding of just cause. They did not have a child and they were not attempting to create a stable family unit for a child.
CUB 24562 referred to. Claimant and her partner cohabited for 2 months and maintained a long-distance relationship for another 4 months. These 6 months fall short of the 12-month requirement established by other statutory schemes for finding a common-law marriage.
Decision 28820
Full Text of Decision 28820
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Moving of a spouse resulting in just cause is often where the move is required by the first spouse's employer, or a spouse might move to take advantage of a significant career advancement or to obtain employment. The test is whether the reasons for the move justified the other spouse to leave work.
There is no legal obligation for one spouse to follow another. The word "obligation" in 28(4)(b) refers to society's expectations that spouses will live together. Para. 28(4)(b), indeed ss. 28(4) as a whole, is a codification of the pre-existing jurisprudence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Decision 28771
Full Text of Decision 28771
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant's wife wished to be with relatives in Ontario, so they moved from Alberta. It is argued that ss.28(4) simply means that the husband or wife must go where the other one travels regardless of whether there is any employment awaiting either spouse. Claimant left for a strictly personal reason.
Decision 28358
Full Text of Decision 28358
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
After acquiring property at some distance from where they were employed, claimant and husband made a joint decision to move. Her husband was prepared to commute by automobile (11/2 hours) but she considered this was not feasible. Held that claimant's move was a personal choice for personal reasons.
Decision 28344
Full Text of Decision 28344
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The Commission is at liberty to implement a policy of including common-law relationship as spouses. Having done so, however, it is now precluded from arguing that in this particular case, the word "spouse" should be given its ordinary meaning of married people.
Decision 28183
Full Text of Decision 28183
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Held that the Board erred in deciding that the claimant was justified in asking her employer a leave of absence without pay to leave the Beauce region and move in Chambly with her boyfriend of 6 years, with whom she had never cohabitated.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
Decision 28090
Full Text of Decision 28090
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
A claimant's case should not be defeated merely because the spouses came to a joint decision to move. In most cases the decision will be made, not by one spouse, but after mutual discussions. Nor should feigned or imagined illness of one's spouse be used to justify leaving one's employment.
Decision 27800
Full Text of Decision 27800
summary
| 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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
applicability |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
charter |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
marriage and move |
|
Decision 27787
Full Text of Decision 27787
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant was not a spouse either by marriage or by common law at the time she left her employment. The words of s. 28(4)(b) are clear and cannot be extended to a person who has become engaged to be married and whose desire it is to co-habit prior to marriage.
Decision 27081
Full Text of Decision 27081
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Commuted weekends for 3 months following relocation of common-law spouse. They had been living together for 9 months and he had become the father figure to her sons although he was not the biological father. Sons very attached to him. Not good for family relationship to try to keep two households.
Decision 26935
Full Text of Decision 26935
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant decided to leave her employment to go with her husband to their retirement property. She had been employed at Sunny Crest Nursing Home in Whitby. Her husband retired from his job with General Motors. They moved to Bancroft. The Board made no error.
Decision 25813A
Full Text of Decision 25813A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Reference to CUB 24562: common-law spouse not excluded from the definition. However, in all the legislation on recognizing common-law spouses, the one-year period is regarded as a minimum period of cohabitation. No statute recognize a shorter period. Thus not a spouse within the meaning of 28(4)(b).
Decision 26336
Full Text of Decision 26336
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant and husband both employed with National Defence in Quebec. Her husband retired in 1991 after 35 years. They wished to move and settle in B.C. This they did when they finally succeeded selling their house in 7-93, at which time claimant left her employment. Held that this is not just cause.
Decision 26127
Full Text of Decision 26127
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left to move and enter into a common-law relationship. Jurisprudence examined. The only recent decision which runs contrary to this line of cases is CUB 24562. When confronted with inconsistent precedents, the adjudicator must follow the more authoritative judicial precedent, i.e. LANDRY.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
Decision 25923
Full Text of Decision 25923
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Left to accompany partner with whom she had cohabited for one month. Her "obligation" under 28(4)(b) was neither to accompany a spouse in what was considered to be the legal concept of that term, or within the expanded meaning of that term as adopted by the Commission's policy (12-month cohabitation).
Decision 25880
Full Text of Decision 25880
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Left B.C. to move to Whitehorse with boyfriend who has since become her common-law spouse. It is argued that 28(4)(b) does not apply. The Board considered she had just cause for leaving in anticipation of a similar position with her spouse's employer at her new residence. This is a question of fact.
Decision 25577
Full Text of Decision 25577
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Case argued on the basis of Commission's policy recognizing a one-year common-law relationship. A common-law relationship will suffice when its permanency can be ascertained by reference to a measurable objective standard. Cohabitation for a 4-month period is insufficient.
Decision 25581
Full Text of Decision 25581
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
I cannot accept that a common-law relationship can never be accommodated under s. 28 and, indeed, the law is evolving in this regard. More and more, we will be looking to stability of unions and possibly recognize common-law unions although the union must be more permanent and lasting (than 3 months).
Decision 25542
Full Text of Decision 25542
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Left Toronto for Winnipeg. She and her fiance cohabited upon arrival there. Wedding set tentatively to take place in 3 months. The Board held that just cause existed and referred to Canadian and Manitoba Human Rights Acts. Error in law. Common-law relationship not established prior to moving.
Decision 25196
Full Text of Decision 25196
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left her work in Toronto after 25 years because retired husband did not, after 8 months, find work. They were temporarily living with their daughter. They could no longer continue living in their home. Had to lower expenses. The Board erred in law in failing to apply para. 28(4)(b).
Decision 25133
Full Text of Decision 25133
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The jurisprudence has established that a person who accompanies a spouse to another location for purposes of employment is justified in leaving. In the instant case the husband left his job to accompany his wife who had no employment and both moved to a place where neither had any employment.
Decision 24933
Full Text of Decision 24933
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Left 1-6-93 to be married in July. She wanted to get the house and garden ready for her move to the farm. I pointed out that spouse does not mean spouse-to-be. LANDRY D. quoted. I agree that she left for personal reasons, and personal reasons do not mean that a person leave with just cause.
Decision 24916
Full Text of Decision 24916
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The wife decided to move away from the big city living which she felt threatened the wellbeing of herself and her family. She just picked up and left her job with no other in mind. In this she was followed by claimant. Held that this did not fall into "an obligation to accompany a spouse".
Decision 24562
Full Text of Decision 24562
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Their relationship fell short of one year and, in light of examples from other statutory provisions concerning recognition of common law relationships, claimant might well not be regarded as a typical common law spouse. However, considering all the circumstances, she had just cause for leaving.
CUB 22033 not followed. As per the Human Rights Act, "spouse" in para. 28(4)(b) includes common law spouses. This does not mean just cause in all such cases. But in this case, considering all the circumstances, claimant had just cause even though their relationship fell short of one year.
Decision 23572
Full Text of Decision 23572
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant left to move to be with her future husband. She comments on the fact that she began a common-law relationship with him a year earlier. However, a common-law husband is not a spouse under the Act and Regulations. Extenuating circumstances exist. She did marry the common-law husband.
Decision 21349
Full Text of Decision 21349
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1210.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Decision A-1210.92
Full Text of Decision A-1210.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Left her employment to live with a friend whom she intended to marry a few months later. The Board assumed that two persons who do not have a common household or are not bound by marriage ties can nevertheless be spouses within the meaning of para. 28(4)(b). In our opinion this is an error.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Decision 22742
Full Text of Decision 22742
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
I do not think that refusal to be transferred constitutes just cause for leaving employment when the reason is a temporary spousal separation for 3 months (until end of school term) and then an unexplained refusal by the spouse to move permanently.
Decision 22700
Full Text of Decision 22700
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
The Board allowed the appeal. This is clearly wrong in law. It is the UI Act which had to be dealt with and if Parliament had intended to include common-law relationships in ss. 28(4) it would have done so. Instead, it clearly refers to "a spouse".
Decision A-0373.92
Full Text of Decision A-0373.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Did not live with fiance while in Regina and moved to Hull to be with him. CUB 4652 bears precisely on this: relationship purely voluntary. She had a right to do so but no obligation. The community at large expects of married couples that they maintain a home. No comment from FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision 20793
Full Text of Decision 20793
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0373.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| umpires |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to umpire |
Decision 22033
Full Text of Decision 22033
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Claimant and her friend had been living together on weekends for 3 years. She commuted every week from Grand Centre to Edmonton and lived with her parents during the week. She left to live with her friend on continuing basis. This is not just cause for leaving employment.
Meaning of spouse in para. 28(4)(b) examined. It means a wife or husband. If Parliament wanted to include a common law spouse it would have so stated. It is not for an Umpire to expand the meaning of the word to include a common-law relationship. To quit to follow a common-law spouse is not just cause.
Decision 21849
Full Text of Decision 21849
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Here, claimant's wife moved to Kamloops to pursue her education. Such activity is by its nature temporary. Also, there is considerable personal choice in deciding where to pursue studies. I cannot characterize the leaving of employment by claimant as just cause.
It has long been held to be just cause for one spouse to leave to follow the other spouse when that other has taken employment in the new location. This circumstance justifies one member of the couple leaving employment and taking the risk of becoming unemployed.
Decision 21500
Full Text of Decision 21500
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
Leaves Montreal to come and live in Gatineau with her friend she has been seeing for three years; not common law spouse and no child. The Board erred in saying there was discrimination between married couples and common law couples infringing on rights and freedoms.
Decision 13504
Full Text of Decision 13504
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Summary:
To move with husband to new home in Shelburne. Commuting time to Toronto is a minimum of 1 1/2 hours. A valid personal reason but not just cause. Given the reason, the job enquiries before leaving and the obtaining employment, disqualification reduced from 3 to 1 week.
