I do not see what it might be that I possibly misunderstood.
You pose and rephrase a hypothetical. It is still HYPOTHETICAL. It is still a question in the abstract.
Being more specific about the terms of the hypothetical does not help, whether your hypothetical relies on an assumption which answers the question, that is the assumption that the job qualifies, so it is a job that qualifies, or it presents an inherently inconsistent hypothesis, in posing that it is about the "same job" when it is not the "same job" (note: if the amount of work or amount of time working makes a difference, it is not the same job).
Generally I agree with suggestions to consult with an appropriate professional for questions that cannot be answered based on readily established information.
But if your questions are about a known, specific employment situation, that is an existing or previously existing one, as I suggested before the odds are high it is easy to say whether it qualifies or not.
Moreover, to qualify for the credit, regardless of the position, the applicant must submit proof of the employment with the public service of Canada or a province, AND
that proof must confirm the individual is NOT a locally engaged person. So for any existing or past position, the individual does not need to see a lawyer but rather can and MUST obtain this proof from the employer. It will confirm CS qualification.
So, anyway, for
'A' works full-time (8 hrs a day) and has been found to qualify, let say by IRCC. 'B' does the exact same same "job" (as in duty or function), but only part-time for 4hrs/day.
It is NOT the case that "
According to you [me] both qualify irrespective of the hours as their job is the same (except the number of hours)?" No.
According to me the difference in hours may or may not be a tipping point factor, but if the hours are different enough to make a difference it is NOT the same job. Whatever other characteristics and terms of the job there might be.
Moreover, as I alluded before, my sense is that the kind of employment relationships which qualify are NOT LIKELY
by-the-hour positions. (I am not sure, but my guess is that a "
job" which is
by-the-hour is quite likely NOT a job that qualifies; not because it is
by-the-hour but rather because the type of jobs which qualify are typically not
by-the-hour employment relationships. Again, as best I can discern.)
Another issue in this hypothetical is that while the function or duty itself is the main element in the classification of a job, for purposes of this discussion, again the WHOLE PACKAGE matters. Including the various terms of contract. It's not the same unless it is indeed the same.
Which leads to referencing the "intricacies" of the issue. Language can be a bit tricky at this level. Especially to the extent that connotations influence perceptions. As much as the particular details matter regarding this issue, and as much as questions about "what job" qualifies cannot be reasonably answered in the abstract or hypothetical, I do not think this is about difficult to understand or puzzling relationships. To my view referring to the "intricacies" is misleading. Details matter. But not in some complex or hard to follow way. But rather because this is a
VERY NARROW EXCEPTION. It applies to a small range of positions for particular government agencies or organizations. Again, with some possible exceptions (as usual), generally it should not be difficult to recognize whether a particular position qualifies.
That is, I do not think it is a complicated issue. Probably fairly simple actually. But what jobs qualify probably depend on the whole package, with consideration for all its material parts.
