During a period with high job losses it makes perfect sense to keep verifying that a person still has their job.
If the system is fair, then it should be done with everyone, not just with someone whose only "fault" was that he applied for his/her spouse's work permit renewal. Also, then it should be publicly disclosed as a policy and not as a hidden "feature" of the system. There are many things that make "perfect sense", till you see that it severely hurts the fairness of the system. As I said before, a system which by design unfairly disadvantages someone is broken. The basic law of justice is that it is fair to everyone.
If the intention is that during the high job losses we need to discourage those who are seeking access to labor market on a temporary basis then it should be fairly applicable to all the applicants atleast and NOT just to someone whose only fault is being married to a spouse who lost their job before the application was processed due to delays owing to a widespread disaster.
In general if a visa approval is based on someone's status it makes sense that the person is supposed to keep the status at least until the other visa/permit is approved.
I believe, AFAIK, in Canada, the temporary residential status is NOT linked with a job. EVEN in the case of a closed work permit. It is linked with validity of work permit and your following of conditions on work permit. Had it been the case, then on work permit, the condition will say something of the lines "Will leave Canada with in X days of losing employment". It was never intended to be like this.
At worst, a borders officer can DENY you entry in Canada because of risk of you seeking to work illegally if you didn't alredy have the right authorization BUT someone who is seeking proper authorization to work in Canada based on their eligibility, IMHO, should not be deprived of that based on pure lethargy of permit processing.
Taking a fee for something you are expecting a service. If Canada asked for much higher fees that covered all the costs related to providing a permit/visa then people could expect faster and better service. If people paid over and and above the cost of processing their applications then we could even get get even better service/
Actually... that is not true.
Why you may ask.
The reason is simple. IRCC is a department of federal government (AFAIK) not a Crown Corporation like Canada Post Corporation. Meaning, its finances are NOT governed by what it earns via fees etc BUT by what Federal Government of Canada allocates in federal budget. Its earning goes straight to Canada's federal revenue and not exactly back invested in say hiring more officers or buying better computers or commissioning better software. During budget, Government of Canada has various priorities and certainly (and naturally too) improving IRCC is way down the list than say funding public health initiatives. Compare this to CPC or BC Hydro or like wise, where the money they collect goes directly in their own finances and that includes providing better service to their clients.
Upshot is this : Even if the applicants paid more, its likely the money may not be invested back into IRCC. There are more priority items for federal government to fund than IRCC. Its the way government's finance work.