Summary Search Results...


Decision A-1472.92 Full Text of Decision A-1472.92

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.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions type of work
refusal of work suitability defined
board of referees legislative authority purpose of ui system
availability for work applicability definition
availability for work restrictions geographical area after moving

Decision 21935 Full Text of Decision 21935

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area
Summary:

Refer to: A-1472.92

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions type of work
board of referees legislative authority purpose of ui system
refusal of work suitability defined
availability for work applicability definition
availability for work restrictions geographical area after moving

Decision 19397 Full Text of Decision 19397

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area
Summary:

Seasonal worker unemployed 2 months. Availability is not just a question of being available but includes this applied to an area within a reasonable distance from one's place of residence which distance must be enlarged as the time of unemployment continues to grow.


Decision 14026 Full Text of Decision 14026

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area
Summary:

Left Barrie to move to Angus (12 miles). Public transportation available. A claimant who is limited to a remote area is allowed a reasonable period of time. This does not apply when a claimant is voluntarily limiting her search to a small centre when possible to commute.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
voluntarily leaving employment commuting transportation difficulties

Decision 13859 Full Text of Decision 13859

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area
Summary:

It has long been held that when a person lives in a place where there is virtually no work s/he cannot be said to be available. They are expected to move. The significant factor is not that one has moved, but that they are located where there is no work. A person who lives in an area of limited employment, whether or not a longtime resident or someone who has just moved there must be willing to broaden their job search efforts and seek work in other centres as well.


Decision 13607 Full Text of Decision 13607

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area
Summary:

Where the claimant is located in a small rural centre, it is sometimes very difficult to determine a fair test for availability. The principle is that one should be given a reasonable length of time.


Decision 13115 Full Text of Decision 13115

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area
Summary:

Longer periods of time for exploring the labour market are normally allowable to persons regularly resident in areas of limited employment opportunities.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements contradictory
availability for work incompatible situations good reasons
board of referees errors in law not applying jurisprudence

Decision 11787 Full Text of Decision 11787

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area
Summary:

Availability is a function not only of claimant's ability and willingness to work but also to accept work in an area where employment is likely to be available. He has complied with the requirement in the sense of personal capacity but not in the geographical sense.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions reasonable period of time

Decision 21825 Full Text of Decision 21825

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area after moving
Summary:

Refer to: A-1485.92


Decision A-1485.92 Full Text of Decision A-1485.92

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area after moving
Summary:

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 21935 Full Text of Decision 21935

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area after moving
Summary:

Refer to: A-1472.92

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area
availability for work restrictions type of work
board of referees legislative authority purpose of ui system
refusal of work suitability defined
availability for work applicability definition

Decision A-1472.92 Full Text of Decision A-1472.92

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.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area
availability for work restrictions type of work
refusal of work suitability defined
board of referees legislative authority purpose of ui system
availability for work applicability definition

Decision A-0261.93 Full Text of Decision A-0261.93

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area after moving
Summary:

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 A-1388.92 Full Text of Decision A-1388.92

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area after moving
Summary:

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

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area after moving
Summary:

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 22342 Full Text of Decision 22342

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area after moving
Summary:

Refer to: A-0209.93


Decision 21693 Full Text of Decision 21693

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area after moving
Summary:

Refer to: A-1388.92


Decision 22377 Full Text of Decision 22377

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area after moving
Summary:

Refer to: A-0261.93


Decision A-0878.82 Full Text of Decision A-0878.82

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions geographical area after moving
Summary:

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.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work restrictions reasonable period of time
Date modified: