EI

[melliemel 0]

Hey,

I looked through the EI thread but noticed that there are only reasons for Anticipated marriage. What if I am already married?

I need the code to give my employer so she can state it correctly on my ROE.

Much appreciated.

Melliemel

[zyggy 9]

Hey,

I looked through the EI thread but noticed that there are only reasons for Anticipated marriage. What if I am already married?

I need the code to give my employer so she can state it correctly on my ROE.

Much appreciated.

Melliemel

Relocation to be with your spouse is also a valid reason for EI...

We asked for Code K and put in the comments box, voluntary termination due to relocation to be with spouse or something to that effect.

Your reason to get EI is reason No. 17

Reason No. 17: Obligation to Accompany a Spouse or Dependent Child to Another Residence

From http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp?hr=...ml&hs=rxr#6_3_3

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.

Edited May 4, 2006 by zyggy

[melliemel 0]

thanks,

I am now trying to find out how I can get my vehicle over. This is just too much in such a short time =(

[zyggy 9]

thanks,

I am now trying to find out how I can get my vehicle over. This is just too much in such a short time =(

Do you have a lease or loan on it...

All you need to get your car over is a compliance letter from the manufacturer. If you have a lease or loan on it, it complicates things quite a bit...

For a loan, you can refinance it in the US... but it probably not cost effective due to the US Dollar.

[Flames9_RN 358]

Some car manufactures will transfer the loan to their American counterpart. I had a car loan through Nissan Finaance Canada, they would not. I ended up selling the car.