【讨论】关于moving EI

YWFJ · Oct 22nd, 2009, 17:33

各位朋友，哪位朋友对moving EI有了解呀，我去service canada 网页上找，也没找到关于moving EI 的信息。

是不是夫妻双方有一个去别的城市，另一方quit掉自己的工作follow，是不是另一方就可以领moving EI 呢，工作时间肯定是够了regular EI的时间了。

先行谢过各位

powergo · Oct 22nd, 2009, 18:11

没问题，我也刚重新找到工作，我老婆也准备拿moving EI。

看来你已经找到工作，恭喜！我也在卡尔加利。

YWFJ · Oct 22nd, 2009, 19:09

引用:

作者: powergo

没问题，我也刚重新找到工作，我老婆也准备拿moving EI。

看来你已经找到工作，恭喜！我也在卡尔加利。

怎么运作呀？是老婆到了那边以后再申请，还是。。。。在哪里可以找到这方面的资料？

谢谢！！

powergo · Oct 22nd, 2009, 21:40

A number of circumstances for quitting are considered just cause
You are justified voluntarily leaving your job in the following situations if, considering all the circumstances, quitting your job was the only reasonable alternative in your case:

sexual or other harassment
needing to move with a spouse or dependent child to another place of residence

VOLUNTARILY LEAVING EMPLOYMENT
6.3.3 Obligation to Accompany a Spouse or Dependent Child to Another Residence

The term "spouse" in this Chapter refers to someone who is married to the claimant. Equal consideration must be given under this provision to a claimant who is living in a relationship of a conjugal nature with an individual of the same or opposite sex and has so lived with this individual for a period of more than one year or who has a child or is about to have a child with that individual.

The circumstances in which a person deems it necessary to accompany a spouse, an individual living in a relationship of a conjugal nature or a dependent child to another place of residence may result from the voluntary decision of a couple or of one of the spouses or individuals living in a relationship of a conjugal nature to change residence for various reasons. It may also be dictated by events, such as the illness or serious injury of a dependent child, forcing a person or family to temporarily or indefinitely relocate in order to be closer to treatment centres.

Individuals who are married or live in a relationship of a conjugal nature sometimes have to move when one of them is transferred or obtains employment in another place, requiring the other person to leave his or her job. In these cases, it must be determined whether the person had other reasonable alternatives, such as commuting between the new place of residence and the work site, that might have made it possible for him or her to keep the job.

The length of the stay in the other place of residence is another factor to be considered when one of the spouses or individuals living in a relationship of a conjugal nature is temporarily absent from the residential area. One alternative that seems to be reasonable is to live apart on a temporary basis, particularly if the absent person is able to return to the region of residence from time to time. Asking the employer for leave can also be a reasonable alternative in some instances.

A couple may decide to change places of residence for personal reasons that are unrelated to the place of employment of the spouse or the individual living in a relationship of a conjugal nature. The couple may wish, for example, to move to the country or into the city. Whether this decision was made unilaterally by one person or was a joint decision made by the couple is of little importance1. What has to be decided, once the decision to move was made, is whether the decision of one person to accompany the other was justified. In determining this, one must take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding this move and ask whether, in this specific case, leaving employment was the only reasonable alternative2.

Although long recognized in jurisprudence, the principle of considering whether there existed at least one reasonable alternative to leaving employment–namely, not changing places of residence before being assured of other employment–no longer holds3. The courts recognize that this is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration, but nowhere does the Act stipulate that one of the spouses or individuals living in a relationship of a conjugal nature must be assured of other employment before moving if the exclusion is not to apply.

The health of a spouse, an individual living in a relationship of a conjugal nature or a dependent child may make it necessary for a person to stay in another place of residence so as to allow the sick person to receive the appropriate treatment. A reasonable alternative in this case may be to commute daily or periodically, depending on the distance and the anticipated length of the stay.

Moreover, in some circumstances, the real necessity for a person to accompany a spouse, an individual living in a relationship of a conjugal nature or dependent child to another place of residence must be questioned. A person should not jeopardize employment to accompany his or her spouse, individual living in a relationship of a conjugal nature or dependent child for a holiday stay, for example. A reasonable alternative in these cases could be living apart on a temporary basis, particularly if the absent person is able to return to the region of residence from time to time.

We saw in a previous section4 how important thorough gathering of facts is for determining whether the person had just cause for leaving. In effect, the situation in which the person finds himself or herself may very well not be reflected by any of the circumstances listed in the Act or not fall within the concept of "spouse or an individual living in a relationship of a conjugal nature." Each situation must be examined carefully and considerations of all kinds may apply: the couple's financial situation, the health of one or both of the spouses or individuals living in a relationship of a conjugal nature, the distance between the old and new places of residence, and even the seriousness of a relationship in cases where the persons have been living together for less than twelve months5. Of course, this list is not exhaustive, but it does illustrate some of the issues.

The situations mentioned in the above paragraph will not necessarily mean that the person is not eligible for benefits. The person may be able to prove that, given all the circumstances, leaving employment was the only reasonable alternative. As we saw previously6, the wording of the Act is sufficiently flexible to be able to make an informed decision as to whether leaving employment was the only reasonable alternative, having regard to all the circumstances. What is involved here is a fundamental test7 that the person must meet, and the Act is explicit in this regard.

碧水蓝天 · Oct 22nd, 2009, 22:16

引用:

作者: YWFJ

各位朋友，哪位朋友对moving EI有了解呀，我去service canada 网页上找，也没找到关于moving EI 的信息。

是不是夫妻双方有一个去别的城市，另一方quit掉自己的工作follow，是不是另一方就可以领moving EI 呢，工作时间肯定是够了regular EI的时间...

confusing

jimmyxv · Oct 24th, 2009, 01:34

引用:

作者: YWFJ

各位朋友，哪位朋友对moving EI有了解呀，我去service canada 网页上找，也没找到关于moving EI 的信息。

是不是夫妻双方有一个去别的城市，另一方quit掉自己的工作follow，是不是另一方就可以领moving EI 呢，工作时间肯定是够了regular EI的时间...

夫妻一方去别的城市工作，另一方可以辞掉工作领EI。要把家先搬过去，在新地方领EI。只是两地要相距100公里以上。

Oct 22nd, 2009, 17:33	#1
YWFJ 逍遥散漫人注册日期: Dec 2008 帖子: 1,559 积分:9 精华:2	【讨论】关于moving EI 各位朋友，哪位朋友对moving EI有了解呀，我去service canada 网页上找，也没找到关于moving EI 的信息。是不是夫妻双方有一个去别的城市，另一方quit掉自己的工作follow，是不是另一方就可以领moving EI 呢，工作时间肯定是够了regular EI的时间了。先行谢过各位
YWFJ 逍遥散漫人注册日期: Dec 2008 帖子: 1,559 积分:9 精华:2

Oct 22nd, 2009, 18:11	只看该作者 #2
powergo Senior Member 注册日期: Jul 2004 帖子: 854 声望: 562143	没问题，我也刚重新找到工作，我老婆也准备拿moving EI。看来你已经找到工作，恭喜！我也在卡尔加利。
powergo Senior Member 注册日期: Jul 2004 帖子: 854 声望: 562143

Oct 22nd, 2009, 21:40	只看该作者 #4
powergo Senior Member 注册日期: Jul 2004 帖子: 854 声望: 562143	A number of circumstances for quitting are considered just cause You are justified voluntarily leaving your job in the following situations if, considering all the circumstances, quitting your job was the only reasonable alternative in your case: sexual or other harassment needing to move with a spouse or dependent child to another place of residence VOLUNTARILY LEAVING EMPLOYMENT 6.3.3 Obligation to Accompany a Spouse or Dependent Child to Another Residence The term "spouse" in this Chapter refers to someone who is married to the claimant. Equal consideration must be given under this provision to a claimant who is living in a relationship of a conjugal nature with an individual of the same or opposite sex and has so lived with this individual for a period of more than one year or who has a child or is about to have a child with that individual. The circumstances in which a person deems it necessary to accompany a spouse, an individual living in a relationship of a conjugal nature or a dependent child to another place of residence may result from the voluntary decision of a couple or of one of the spouses or individuals living in a relationship of a conjugal nature to change residence for various reasons. It may also be dictated by events, such as the illness or serious injury of a dependent child, forcing a person or family to temporarily or indefinitely relocate in order to be closer to treatment centres. Individuals who are married or live in a relationship of a conjugal nature sometimes have to move when one of them is transferred or obtains employment in another place, requiring the other person to leave his or her job. In these cases, it must be determined whether the person had other reasonable alternatives, such as commuting between the new place of residence and the work site, that might have made it possible for him or her to keep the job. The length of the stay in the other place of residence is another factor to be considered when one of the spouses or individuals living in a relationship of a conjugal nature is temporarily absent from the residential area. One alternative that seems to be reasonable is to live apart on a temporary basis, particularly if the absent person is able to return to the region of residence from time to time. Asking the employer for leave can also be a reasonable alternative in some instances. A couple may decide to change places of residence for personal reasons that are unrelated to the place of employment of the spouse or the individual living in a relationship of a conjugal nature. The couple may wish, for example, to move to the country or into the city. Whether this decision was made unilaterally by one person or was a joint decision made by the couple is of little importance1. What has to be decided, once the decision to move was made, is whether the decision of one person to accompany the other was justified. In determining this, one must take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding this move and ask whether, in this specific case, leaving employment was the only reasonable alternative2. Although long recognized in jurisprudence, the principle of considering whether there existed at least one reasonable alternative to leaving employment–namely, not changing places of residence before being assured of other employment–no longer holds3. The courts recognize that this is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration, but nowhere does the Act stipulate that one of the spouses or individuals living in a relationship of a conjugal nature must be assured of other employment before moving if the exclusion is not to apply. The health of a spouse, an individual living in a relationship of a conjugal nature or a dependent child may make it necessary for a person to stay in another place of residence so as to allow the sick person to receive the appropriate treatment. A reasonable alternative in this case may be to commute daily or periodically, depending on the distance and the anticipated length of the stay. Moreover, in some circumstances, the real necessity for a person to accompany a spouse, an individual living in a relationship of a conjugal nature or dependent child to another place of residence must be questioned. A person should not jeopardize employment to accompany his or her spouse, individual living in a relationship of a conjugal nature or dependent child for a holiday stay, for example. A reasonable alternative in these cases could be living apart on a temporary basis, particularly if the absent person is able to return to the region of residence from time to time. We saw in a previous section4 how important thorough gathering of facts is for determining whether the person had just cause for leaving. In effect, the situation in which the person finds himself or herself may very well not be reflected by any of the circumstances listed in the Act or not fall within the concept of "spouse or an individual living in a relationship of a conjugal nature." Each situation must be examined carefully and considerations of all kinds may apply: the couple's financial situation, the health of one or both of the spouses or individuals living in a relationship of a conjugal nature, the distance between the old and new places of residence, and even the seriousness of a relationship in cases where the persons have been living together for less than twelve months5. Of course, this list is not exhaustive, but it does illustrate some of the issues. The situations mentioned in the above paragraph will not necessarily mean that the person is not eligible for benefits. The person may be able to prove that, given all the circumstances, leaving employment was the only reasonable alternative. As we saw previously6, the wording of the Act is sufficiently flexible to be able to make an informed decision as to whether leaving employment was the only reasonable alternative, having regard to all the circumstances. What is involved here is a fundamental test7 that the person must meet, and the Act is explicit in this regard.
powergo Senior Member 注册日期: Jul 2004 帖子: 854 声望: 562143