Careers

EI (Employment Insurance) discussion thread

  • Last Updated:
  • Feb 15th, 2019 1:30 pm
Newbie
Dec 11, 2015
19 posts
3 upvotes
SillyRabbit14 wrote:
Nov 9th, 2016 10:19 am
Any update on?
Thanks in advance

Hello all!

I am new member to this forum and have been reading up tremendously on a lot of the information provided. It is very useful and I thank all of you in advance for your contribution. I have a specific situation that is related to Employment Insurance and I am hoping that my situation can be clarified by someone on this site. Here it is:

I was let go by my employer over a month ago due to a lack of work. According to Service Canada, I have way more than enough insurable hours and it was recently confirmed that I eligible to receive employment insurance while I find new employment.

On Friday evenings after work, I usually drive to Vermont to see my girlfriends family (They have a cottage in Vermont and live in Canada). We stay until Sunday afternoon, so I am always back for Monday. I am serious about finding new employment and will definitely be working regular working hours to find something (I.e Monday to Friday). I spoke to a Service Canada Agent and he gave me information that based on the fact that I am going to Visit Friends and Family and will be out of the country for less than 24hours (weekends don't count), I should be fine. I will notify service Canada each time before I cross the border, I.e most Fridays.

Question 1: Will I lose out on benefits for Friday if I cross the border in the evening and return Sunday.
Question 2: Will Service Canada flag me and remove my benefits as a whole if I am leaving Canada most Friday evenings (i.e 3/4 weekends in any given month)
Question 3: Is there a specific time that I should cross the border? When I was working, we usually would cross the border around 6-7 pm as I'd leave straight from work and already have all of our stuff packed.
Question 4: For the purpose of having to leave the country, are we allowed to work hours different than the normal (i.e different than the regular 9am-5pm). For example: Am I able to work (8am-4pm or 7am-3pm) on a Friday to avoid Traffic at the border?
Question 5: In Vermont, I have access to phone, internet and I always bring a laptop. If the 24 hour rule does apply (Based on the fact that I am visiting friends and family), If I leave earlier on a Friday and tell service canada that I will be working on finding a new during the day in Vermont, will I lose benefits? Technically If I crossed the border at noon, worked in Vermont looking for employment in Canada and came back Sunday, I wouldn't be over the 24hour rule.

I go most weekends and I don't want to be paid if I may have to repay these amounts (Plus interest) in the future. With that being said, I want to follow the rules exactly, I am just a bit worried that I will be paid for each Friday now and notified a year or two down the road that I owe each Friday back.

Thank you in advance for your responses.

I would be interested in clseea's assessment of your situation. I know that I went to the States on a Friday evening after 7 pm and stayed til the following Sunday. When I filed my report online I got a message to call Service Canada which I did. The representative for Service Canada advised me that I was not entitled to benefits for the week I was away plus the Friday. Her reasoning was that I was not available for work as I was absent from Canada. I told her any job I had in the past was a day job and that is the type of job where I would normally go to the States after work on a Friday at times. She said it didn't matter how long I was away on the Friday and denied payment for that day. She said I could appeal it if I wanted and the appeal would go to a different agent to review for their assessment. I was quite surprised at this response and decided to appeal it on principle. I wrote the appeal and submitted it. The finding on this appeal was that I was available for work, but because that the EI Act didn't allow payment (except in special circumstances) if a person is outside Canada on that day. The letter outlined a further appeal process at a hearing, which if held would be 100 km from where I live and I would be responsible for any costs incurred. At this point I accepted that bureaucratic rules had won over feeling that this was unfair an just dropped the matter, so I lost one day of benefits for being out of the country 5 hours on a Friday evening. I would be interested in knowing if that is common interpretation of how the regulations are interpretated at Service Canada for a situation like this, or was it just an interpretation by a two different agents, that another agent may have allowed.
Newbie
Nov 7, 2016
4 posts
Frank1955 wrote:
Nov 11th, 2016 10:46 am
I would be interested in clseea's assessment of your situation. I know that I went to the States on a Friday evening after 7 pm and stayed til the following Sunday. When I filed my report online I got a message to call Service Canada which I did. The representative for Service Canada advised me that I was not entitled to benefits for the week I was away plus the Friday. Her reasoning was that I was not available for work as I was absent from Canada. I told her any job I had in the past was a day job and that is the type of job where I would normally go to the States after work on a Friday at times. She said it didn't matter how long I was away on the Friday and denied payment for that day. She said I could appeal it if I wanted and the appeal would go to a different agent to review for their assessment. I was quite surprised at this response and decided to appeal it on principle. I wrote the appeal and submitted it. The finding on this appeal was that I was available for work, but because that the EI Act didn't allow payment (except in special circumstances) if a person is outside Canada on that day. The letter outlined a further appeal process at a hearing, which if held would be 100 km from where I live and I would be responsible for any costs incurred. At this point I accepted that bureaucratic rules had won over feeling that this was unfair an just dropped the matter, so I lost one day of benefits for being out of the country 5 hours on a Friday evening. I would be interested in knowing if that is common interpretation of how the regulations are interpretated at Service Canada for a situation like this, or was it just an interpretation by a two different agents, that another agent may have allowed.
Hey There.

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. May I ask at what date/year this occurred? Were you leaving Canada for a Vacation? I think they are quite strict when it comes to vacation. Also, you were out of Canada for more than 24hours, so that could be a reason of why you were denied. In my situation, it is not a vacation, I'll be visiting my girlfriends family at there cottage in Vermont. I won't be gone longer than 24hours since the weekends don't count. Ether way, what I'm anxious about is the fact that you left at 7pm and were still denied. It is unfair.

I am hoping due to the fact that this is not considered vacation, I am gone less than 24hour and I am visiting friends and family (which meets the criteria of the 24hour rule) I will be paid for the Friday. Either way, I am nervous that I'll be reassessed down the road which would be unfair.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 21, 2011
8404 posts
1439 upvotes
Edmonton
SillyRabbit14 wrote:
Nov 11th, 2016 12:50 pm
Hey There.

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. May I ask at what date/year this occurred? Were you leaving Canada for a Vacation? I think they are quite strict when it comes to vacation. Also, you were out of Canada for more than 24hours, so that could be a reason of why you were denied. In my situation, it is not a vacation, I'll be visiting my girlfriends family at there cottage in Vermont. I won't be gone longer than 24hours since the weekends don't count. Ether way, what I'm anxious about is the fact that you left at 7pm and were still denied. It is unfair.

I am hoping due to the fact that this is not considered vacation, I am gone less than 24hour and I am visiting friends and family (which meets the criteria of the 24hour rule) I will be paid for the Friday. Either way, I am nervous that I'll be reassessed down the road which would be unfair.
You should fall within the 24 hour rule so shouldn't experience any disentitlements
Newbie
Nov 10, 2016
2 posts
Hello, I am hoping to get some advice on my case. Thanks in advance.
I graduated a few month ago with a engineering degree. While I was doing school, i had part-time job for 1.5 years which I quit in September for another full-time job. These two job are both labour jobs. So far haven't found an engineering job yet but actively looking. Since most of engineering job is in Toronto. So I decide to quit my second job and move to Toronto to look for engineering job. And my wife will quit her job and move with me.
My questions are:
1. Am i qualify for EI?
2. if yes. I had over 900 hrs for my first job. But the second one (latest) only had less than 300 hrs. Am i qualify in this case? On both of ROE, the reason for leaving is quit. is that a problem?
3. Is my wife qualify for EI?
4. Since we are moving in a month, should I apply now or after arrive Toronto?
Deal Fanatic
Nov 21, 2011
8404 posts
1439 upvotes
Edmonton
klausF346123 wrote:
Nov 11th, 2016 3:00 pm
Hello, I am hoping to get some advice on my case. Thanks in advance.
I graduated a few month ago with a engineering degree. While I was doing school, i had part-time job for 1.5 years which I quit in September for another full-time job. These two job are both labour jobs. So far haven't found an engineering job yet but actively looking. Since most of engineering job is in Toronto. So I decide to quit my second job and move to Toronto to look for engineering job. And my wife will quit her job and move with me.
My questions are:
1. Am i qualify for EI?
2. if yes. I had over 900 hrs for my first job. But the second one (latest) only had less than 300 hrs. Am i qualify in this case? On both of ROE, the reason for leaving is quit. is that a problem?
3. Is my wife qualify for EI?
4. Since we are moving in a month, should I apply now or after arrive Toronto?
1. No. You quit without just cause and without seeking reasonable alternatives. You created your own unemployment.
2. No again.
3. No.
4. You apply when you stop working. But you quit without just cause so won't qualify anyways.
Newbie
Nov 10, 2016
2 posts
Question: I am eligible for EI starting in December and accept a Job offer that starts in April. Am I eligible for benefits during the gap? And what if I were to accept, but not start, then go back on the offer? I do not have to take this job as it requires an extreme commute. Just curious about these scenarios. Thanks!
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 31, 2006
4924 posts
687 upvotes
Toronto
klausF346123 wrote:
Nov 11th, 2016 3:00 pm
Hello, I am hoping to get some advice on my case. Thanks in advance.
I graduated a few month ago with a engineering degree. While I was doing school, i had part-time job for 1.5 years which I quit in September for another full-time job. These two job are both labour jobs. So far haven't found an engineering job yet but actively looking. Since most of engineering job is in Toronto. So I decide to quit my second job and move to Toronto to look for engineering job. And my wife will quit her job and move with me.
My questions are:
1. Am i qualify for EI?
2. if yes. I had over 900 hrs for my first job. But the second one (latest) only had less than 300 hrs. Am i qualify in this case? On both of ROE, the reason for leaving is quit. is that a problem?
3. Is my wife qualify for EI?
4. Since we are moving in a month, should I apply now or after arrive Toronto?
You are qualify for relocation EI, but not regular EI since you quit. But how relocation EI work , I am not sure. My friend quit his job in Toronto and moved to Alberta got a relocation EI (that was few years back).
Deal Fanatic
Nov 21, 2011
8404 posts
1439 upvotes
Edmonton
cgtlky wrote:
Nov 11th, 2016 8:42 pm
You are qualify for relocation EI, but not regular EI since you quit. But how relocation EI work , I am not sure. My friend quit his job in Toronto and moved to Alberta got a relocation EI (that was few years back).
That's amazing. Please tell me more about this magical relocation EI.
Newbie
Nov 11, 2016
2 posts
Hi everyone, I haven't seen a question like this posted recently.

I was approved for EI in July, received my benefits, however I did receive other monies in August, which I reported - they totally messed up my account, and I wasn't paid for almost 2 months. Eventually, they fixed it.

I just started a part time job, I'm working between 11-15 hours/week while I look for full time work. My report is coming up next Friday, and I am worried that once I submit my hours and money, I will have to wait up to 21 days (again) for them to recalculate how much will be deducted from my pay/benefits.

My question - when you report your hours for the first time, does it take 2 business days to process or longer?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 22, 2005
1307 posts
215 upvotes
clseea wrote:
Nov 12th, 2016 2:53 pm
Except the OP is quitting his job without just cause. And his wife is quitting her job for no reason other than they're choosing to move. And there's no such thing as "relocation EI". Stop giving advice
6.5.3 Obligation to accompany a spouse, common-law partner or dependent child to another residence

The circumstances in which a person deems it necessary to accompany a spouse or a common-law partner to another place of residence may result from the voluntary decision one or both of the spouses or common-law partners made 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.

Subsection 2.(1) of the Act defines a common-law partner as an individual who has cohabitated in a conjugal relationship for a period of one yearFootnote 3.

Although cases and circumstances may differ, individuals who are in a common-law relationship have certain factors in common. Some basic elements include:

Common residence
Financial interdependence
Sharing of responsibility in running the household
Shared use of assets (car etc.)
Shared responsibility in raising any children
Absence of these elements puts the existence of such a relationship in doubt.

The fact that individuals are in a common-law relationship of less than one year and do not fall within the circumstances prescribed in Regulation 51.1 will not automatically mean that they are not eligible for benefits if they leave their employment to follow their partner. All elements that prompted these individuals to leave their employment must be evaluated. The expression in the Act "having regard to all the circumstances" requires that all of the evidence of the case be considered.

Each situation must be examined carefully and considerations of all kinds may apply. In addition to factors already mentioned, additional evidence could include:

the couple's financial situation (it may be too costly to maintain two households);
the seriousness of the relationship in cases where the persons have been living together for less than twelve monthsFootnote 4;
the permanency of a relationship when there is an impending marriage;
evidence that the couple was in a committed relationship prior to moving;
the distance between the old and new places of residence as it may be such that the couple could not have maintained a commuting relationship;
the consequences on the couple's relationship of living in separate residences;
efforts made to secure employment in new area of residence.
Of course, this list is not exhaustive, but it does illustrate some of the issues.

Where a claimant failed to prove a one year common-law relationship, the Umpire allowed her claim due to the committed nature of the relationship. Conversely, in another case where a claimant relocated to commence living with her fiancé with plans to marry in more than 10 months, it was found that she had not shown just cause as the marriage was not imminent and she was not relocating to accompany her spouse as they had no history of cohabitation prior to the move.

When there is no evidence that cohabitation existed, however, 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 spouseFootnote 5.

Regulation 51.1 identifies prescribed circumstances in which a claimant can be justified to accompany to another residence a person with whom they have been cohabiting for a period of less than one year. The prescribed circumstances include a conjugal relationship where one of the two individuals has had or has adopted a child during their period of cohabitation, is expecting the birth of a child, where a child has been placed with one of them during that period for the purpose of adoption or where a claimant has an obligation to care for a member of their immediate family within the meaning of Subsection 55(2) of the Regulations.

An obligation to accompany a spouse or common-law partner to another residence must not be confused with a simple desire to do so. A person who voluntarily leaves employment by personal choice to accompany their spouse or common-law partner to another residence when there are other reasonable alternatives or means available to remain in their employment would have difficulty showing just cause as required by the Act.

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

The length of the stay in the other place of residence is a factor to be considered in these situations when one of the spouses or common-law partner obtains temporary employment in another residential area. One alternative that seems to be reasonable is to live apart on a temporary basis, particularly if the person who relocated 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. Such was the case where a claimant left a permanent job to accompany her spouse to a new location where the spouse had a temporary job only. It was found that the claimant did not have just cause for leaving and was held that a reasonable alternative would have been for the couple to live apart temporarily.

A couple may also decide to change places of residence for personal reasons which are unrelated to the place of employment of the spouse or the common-law partner. The couple may wish, for example, to move to the country, into the city or to be close to family members. Whether this decision was made unilaterally by one person or was a joint decision made by the couple is of little importance. 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 alternative.

The Act does not require that one of the spouses or common-law partners be assured of other employment before moving. However, the circumstances surrounding the move must be examined to determine whether leaving employment was the only reasonable alternative before creating the risk of being unemployedFootnote 6. It is important to investigate if other reasonable alternatives were available to the claimant such as requesting a transfer, commuting daily or periodically, living apart on a temporary basis or requesting a leave from the employer.

The health of a spouse or child may make it necessary for an individual to stay in another place of residence to allow their sick family member to receive 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, or take a leave of absence for the duration of the treatment.

Finally, it is important to keep an open mind when evaluating all the elements that prompted a person to leave their employment to accompany their spouse, common-law partner or child to another place of residence. 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. What needs to be decided is what is appropriate for that individual in their circumstances.

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 test that the person must meet, and the Act is explicit in this regard.
http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/reports/ei/dig ... age#a6_5_3

It's not relocation benefits. These are regular EI benefits granted due to a special circumstance which lead the spouse to voluntarily quit. All the special circumstances can be found here: http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/reports/ei/dig ... age#a6_5_0

Quitting to relocate to be with a spouse is one of those circumstances. You do have to prove though there is no other choice (i.e. Too far to commute for example) Regardless it's possible (I think likely) klaus's spouse would qualify under this provision. The Act is clear that it doesn't matter that Klaus quit. They will look at his wife's obligation to move with Klaus.

With that said:
An obligation to accompany a spouse or common-law partner to another residence must not be confused with a simple desire to do so. A person who voluntarily leaves employment by personal choice to accompany their spouse or common-law partner to another residence when there are other reasonable alternatives or means available to remain in their employment would have difficulty showing just cause as required by the Act.

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

The length of the stay in the other place of residence is a factor to be considered in these situations when one of the spouses or common-law partner obtains temporary employment in another residential area. One alternative that seems to be reasonable is to live apart on a temporary basis, particularly if the person who relocated 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. Such was the case where a claimant left a permanent job to accompany her spouse to a new location where the spouse had a temporary job only. It was found that the claimant did not have just cause for leaving and was held that a reasonable alternative would have been for the couple to live apart temporarily.
The question will be, does Klaus wife have just cause.
Each situation must be examined carefully and considerations of all kinds may apply. In addition to factors already mentioned, additional evidence could include:

the couple's financial situation (it may be too costly to maintain two households);
the seriousness of the relationship in cases where the persons have been living together for less than twelve monthsFootnote 4;
the permanency of a relationship when there is an impending marriage;
evidence that the couple was in a committed relationship prior to moving;
the distance between the old and new places of residence as it may be such that the couple could not have maintained a commuting relationship;
the consequences on the couple's relationship of living in separate residences;
efforts made to secure employment in new area of residence.
Of course, this list is not exhaustive, but it does illustrate some of the issues
I only know of this because my wife will likely be applying under this same provision to be with me. So I have spoken with Service Canada extensively about it. It seems that claims made under the special circumstances are examined case by case.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 21, 2011
8404 posts
1439 upvotes
Edmonton
Bamelin wrote:
Nov 13th, 2016 8:11 am
http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/reports/ei/dig ... age#a6_5_3

It's not relocation benefits. These are regular EI benefits granted due to a special circumstance which lead the spouse to voluntarily quit. All the special circumstances can be found here: http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/reports/ei/dig ... age#a6_5_0

Quitting to relocate to be with a spouse is one of those circumstances. You do have to prove though there is no other choice (i.e. Too far to commute for example) Regardless it's possible (I think likely) klaus's spouse would qualify under this provision. The Act is clear that it doesn't matter that Klaus quit. They will look at his wife's obligation to move with Klaus.

With that said:



The question will be, does Klaus wife have just cause.



I only know of this because my wife will likely be applying under this same provision to be with me. So I have spoken with Service Canada extensively about it. It seems that claims made under the special circumstances are examined case by case.
She needs to prove just cause and exhaust reasonable alternatives to quitting prior to doing so. Same as every other scenario involving voluntarily leaving employment. This hasn't been shown given the information provided, hence my answer.
Newbie
Nov 10, 2016
2 posts
Bamelin wrote:
Nov 13th, 2016 8:11 am
http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/reports/ei/dig ... age#a6_5_3

It's not relocation benefits. These are regular EI benefits granted due to a special circumstance which lead the spouse to voluntarily quit. All the special circumstances can be found here: http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/reports/ei/dig ... age#a6_5_0

Quitting to relocate to be with a spouse is one of those circumstances. You do have to prove though there is no other choice (i.e. Too far to commute for example) Regardless it's possible (I think likely) klaus's spouse would qualify under this provision. The Act is clear that it doesn't matter that Klaus quit. They will look at his wife's obligation to move with Klaus.

With that said:



The question will be, does Klaus wife have just cause.



I only know of this because my wife will likely be applying under this same provision to be with me. So I have spoken with Service Canada extensively about it. It seems that claims made under the special circumstances are examined case by case.
Thanks so much for your reply.
I think my wife will be qualified for EI. I may not.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 22, 2005
1307 posts
215 upvotes
klausF346123 wrote:
Nov 13th, 2016 8:11 am
Thanks so much for your reply.
I think my wife will be qualified for EI. I may not.
If they decline her application make sure she appeals the decision.

Top