Availability
II. Principles of Law
(e) Moving to Accompany a Spouse
A claimant's relocation to an area with limited job opportunities in order to accompany a spouse, must be regarded as a move which the claimant had no option but to make in order to preserve the family unit. Claimants who move for this reason do so for reasons entirely beyond their control.
Canada (A.G.) v. Dodsworth, [1984] 2 F.C. 193 (F.C.A.) A-878-82 Judgment of the federal court of appeal
Canada (A.G.) v. DeVos [1994], F.C.J. No. 250 (F.C.A.) A-261-93 Judgment of the federal court of appeal
Canada (A.G.) v. Whiffen [1994], F.C.J. No. 252 (F.C.A.) A-1472-92 Judgment of the federal court of appeal
Canada (A.G.) v. Kuntz [1994], F.C.J. No. 298 (F.C.A.) A-1485-92 Judgment of the federal court of appeal
A claimant in these circumstances is to be treated in the same manner as residents of an area of limited or no employment opportunities. In other words, they are to be given some real opportunity to find employment in the new location, no matter how "forlorn" the chance of success, before being required to broaden their job search.
[ previous Previous page | table of contents | next Next page ]