Common-Law Relationships in British Columbia: Property and Inheritance Rights

In British Columbia, common-law partners, known as "spouses" under the law once they have lived together in a marriage-like relationship for at least 2 years, get nearly the same property, pension and inheritance rights that married spouses get. This makes BC one of the most generous provinces in Canada, but the 2-year clock and a specific child-together exception both need to be understood before assuming full parity applies.

Information last verified on 2026-08-15. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

British Columbia's Two-Year Threshold, and the Exception That Trips People Up

British Columbia's Family Law Act [SBC 2011] c.25 (FLA) does not use "common law" as a defined legal term. Instead it defines "spouse" in section 3, and the same definition covers married and unmarried couples together. Read directly from the statute:

A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person (a) is married to another person, or (b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and (i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or (ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.

That "except in Parts 5 and 6" clause is easy to miss, and it changes the answer to one of the most common questions people ask about BC. Having a child together with your partner does make you a "spouse" for spousal support and everywhere else the FLA applies, even if you have lived together less than 2 years. It does not make you a spouse for property division or pension division. Those two Parts are carved out by name. A couple with a child together but under 2 years of cohabitation has no statutory property claim until they reach the full 2-year mark.

Separation itself does not require moving out. Section 3(4) lets spouses be treated as separated while still living in the same home, based on communicated intent or an action that shows that intent. And a short attempt to reconcile does not restart the clock: under section 83(1), reconciliation attempts of 90 days or less within a year of separation don't undo the separation.

For how BC's approach compares to the rest of the country, see our overview of common-law relationships across Canada.

Property Division: Full Parity Once You Qualify

This is where BC stands out. Once someone is a "spouse" under section 3(1) (married, or 2 years of marriage-like cohabitation), Part 5 of the FLA applies to them exactly the way it applies to a married spouse. There is no separate, lesser property regime for common-law partners:

Subject to an agreement or order that provides otherwise ... spouses are both entitled to family property and responsible for family debt, regardless of their respective use or contribution, and on separation, each spouse has a right to an undivided half interest in all family property as a tenant in common, and is equally responsible for family debt.

"Family property" is defined broadly under section 84: it covers property owned by either spouse on the date of separation, not only property acquired during the relationship. "Excluded property" under section 85 (property one partner brought into the relationship, gifts, and inheritances) is carved out, though the increase in value of excluded property during the relationship is still divisible.

A court can order something other than an equal split, but only where equal division would be "significantly unfair." We were not able to confirm the full statutory list of factors a court weighs under that test in this research pass, so if unequal division might apply to your situation, that is a question to bring to a lawyer rather than assume from a general summary.

The Limitation Period: Same 2 Years, a Different Starting Point

There is a hard deadline on all of this. Under section 198(2), a claim for property division, pension division, or spousal support generally has to be started no later than 2 years after the date of divorce or nullity for married spouses, or the date of separation for unmarried, marriage-like spouses. The clock pauses while the couple is in family dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration.

Missing that 2-year window can mean losing the right to claim property or pension division entirely, so it is worth tracking the separation date carefully rather than assuming there is no urgency just because you were never married.

Spousal Support

Anyone who meets the section 3(1) definition of "spouse," including someone who qualifies only through the child-together shortcut, can apply for support under Part 7 of the FLA. Qualifying as a spouse does not automatically mean support is owed; entitlement still has to be established, based on need, compensation for economic disadvantage arising from the relationship or its breakdown, or an agreement between the partners. The same 2-year limitation period that applies to property applies to a support claim, running from the date of separation and pausing during family dispute resolution.

For how support amounts and duration are typically worked out once entitlement is established, see our guide to spousal support in Canada.

If Your Common-Law Partner Dies Without a Will

British Columbia is also one of the clearest examples of full parity on death. The Wills, Estates and Succession Act [SBC 2009] c.13 (WESA) uses the same 2-year marriage-like-relationship definition of "spouse" that the FLA uses for property and support. A relationship stops counting under WESA if it is terminated, subject to the same 90-day reconciliation carve-out described above.

Once a common-law partner qualifies, WESA gives them the identical intestate share a married spouse would get; there is no lesser share for being unmarried:

• If there are no descendants, the entire estate goes to the surviving spouse.
• If there are descendants, the spouse gets the household furnishings, plus a preferential share off the top of the estate: 300,000 dollars if all of the deceased's descendants are also the spouse's descendants, or 150,000 dollars if some of the deceased's descendants are not the spouse's, for example children from an earlier relationship. The residue then splits 50/50 between the spouse and the descendants.
• WESA also anticipates a case where a legally married but separated spouse and a qualifying common-law partner could both count as "spouses" at the same time; in that situation the two share the spousal entitlement by agreement, or as a court decides if they cannot agree.

WESA also gives a qualifying common-law spouse a right connected to the home the couple shared, similar to what a married spouse gets. The exact mechanics of that process, including notice periods, were not something we could independently confirm against the statute's text in this research pass, so treat that as a starting point to raise with a lawyer or the Public Guardian and Trustee, not the full picture.

For how intestacy works more broadly in Canada, see our guide to dying without a will, and for how to avoid intestacy altogether, see making a will in Canada.

Federal Programs Run on a Different Clock

CPP survivor benefits and the Canada Revenue Agency's common-law tax definition are federal rules that apply the same way in every province, including BC. The CRA generally treats a couple as common-law after 12 months of cohabitation, or sooner with a shared child, which does not line up with BC's 2-year family-law threshold. Qualifying as common-law with the CRA does not mean you qualify as a "spouse" under BC's FLA or WESA, and vice versa.

Proving You Were in a "Marriage-Like Relationship"

BC courts do not apply a fixed checklist to decide whether a couple was living in a marriage-like relationship. In an often-cited case, Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the BC Court of Appeal is widely reported to have said that no single factor, including whether the partners kept their finances separate, is decisive on its own. Courts instead look at the relationship as a whole: shared shelter, the couple's personal and social life together, how they supported each other financially, whether they raised children together, and how they presented themselves to family and friends. We were not able to independently confirm the exact wording of that holding against the court's own text in this research pass, so treat this as the general understanding of how BC courts approach the question rather than a direct quotation.

Because BC's FLA defines "spouse" to already include qualifying unmarried partners, there is no separate category of "cohabitation agreement" distinct from a marriage agreement. The same statutory provisions, covering agreements about property (section 92) and spousal support (section 163), apply to both married and common-law spouses. A couple can also sign such an agreement before reaching the 2-year mark, to set their own terms in advance rather than wait for the default rules to apply. Unlike some provinces, BC has no Vital Statistics registration option for common-law relationships; status is proven by the facts of the relationship, not by filing anything.

For more on how these agreements are drafted and what makes them enforceable, see our guide to separation agreements in Canada.

How British Columbia Compares

Because BC's 2-year threshold opens the door to the same property, pension, and inheritance rules that apply to married spouses, it stands out from provinces like Ontario, where common-law partners never get an automatic right to divide property no matter how long they lived together. For a side-by-side look at how other provinces handle these same questions, see our guides to common-law relationships in Ontario and common-law relationships in Alberta.

Disclaimer

This article provides general information about British Columbia family law and is not legal advice. It reflects our reading of the Family Law Act and the Wills, Estates and Succession Act as consolidated to August 2026, but the exact factors courts use for unequal property division under section 95, the mechanics of a common-law spouse's right connected to the family home under WESA, and the precise wording of the Weber v. Leclerc holding were not independently confirmed against primary sources in our research and should be checked directly with a licensed British Columbia family law lawyer. Family law outcomes depend on the specific facts of each relationship.