Case information

Family law — Common law spouses — Family assets — Support — Parties separating after living together for 18 years — Respondent awarded a share in property owned by applicant, subject to set off, and retroactive and continuing spousal support — What does it mean to be in a “conjugal” relationship in Canada? — Whether the current definition appropriately recognizes the diversity of family structures and relationships in Canada — Whether a 17 year co residency, with no children, no financial integration, and no “joint family venture” should be considered “conjugal” — How should Canadian courts approach the legal tests, including that in Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, for property entitlement upon the breakdown of a conjugal relationship? — Whether legal title of joint tenancy equates to equal beneficial ownership.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC)

The parties began residing with one another in 1996, in a home formerly owned by the respondent’s parents. At the time, the applicant contributed to the capital improvements and operating costs of the house while the respondent paid the mortgage. In 2006, the parties purchased a new home and title was taken in joint names. They resided there until the respondent left in July 2014. The applicant paid all of the costs associated with that home. When the parties separated, the respondent sought partner support, property division as a common law spouse and costs. The applicant opposed all claims, arguing that the parties were not common law partners, but if they were, that she had missed the two year limitation period for support. He also relied on principles of resulting trust and unjust enrichment to defeat the respondent’s property claims.

The trial judge awarded the respondent a share of property in addition to monthly spousal support for a period of 17 years. On the applicant’s appeal, the amount of the respondent’s property award was increased and the amount and duration of spousal support was reduced.