Common-Law Relationships in Canada by Province

In Canada there is no single common-law status: the length of cohabitation that qualifies you, and whether you get spousal support and a share of property, are set separately by each province and territory.

Common Law Is Provincial, Not Federal

Divorce is governed by the federal Divorce Act, but the Divorce Act only applies to married spouses ending a marriage. Common-law and de facto relationships are not marriages, so there is no federal common-law divorce process at all. When an unmarried couple separates, the rules that apply come entirely from provincial or territorial family law.

That matters because property division in Canada is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, while spousal support for married couples can come from either the federal Divorce Act or a province's family law act. For unmarried couples, both support and property questions are decided under provincial statutes, and those statutes vary widely in how they define a common-law partner and what rights that status carries.

The result is that two people who have lived together for the same number of years can have very different legal positions depending only on which province they live in, and depending on whether the question is spousal support or a share of the home and savings.

The Province Comparison Table

The single most important pattern in that table is that Ontario and Quebec both withhold something British Columbia and Alberta provide. Ontario withholds automatic property division. Quebec withholds spousal support entirely. Assuming your rights are the same as a married couple's, or the same as a friend's in another province, is the most common and most costly mistake in this area.

Ontario: Support Without Property Rights

Ontario recognizes a common-law spouse for support purposes under Part III of the Family Law Act after 3 years of cohabitation, or sooner if the couple has a child together and the relationship shows some permanence. A common-law partner in Ontario can apply for spousal support on the same entitlement principles a court would apply to a married spouse.

What Ontario does not do is extend the equalization of net family property to common-law partners. Equalization, the sharing of the value built up during the relationship, is reserved for married spouses under the Family Law Act. An unmarried partner in Ontario who wants a share of property has to bring a separate claim in equity, typically unjust enrichment, and prove a constructive trust rather than rely on any automatic formula. For more detail on Ontario specifically, see our dedicated page on common-law relationships in Ontario.

British Columbia: The Most Generous Province

British Columbia treats common-law partners the most like married spouses of any province. Under the Family Law Act, two people become spouses after 2 years living together in a marriage-like relationship, and that status triggers both support obligations and full division of family property and family debt, the same regime that applies to married couples.

Because the BC threshold is shorter than Ontario's and the consequences are broader, a couple who moves from Ontario to BC, or the reverse, can see their legal exposure change substantially without any change in their relationship itself.

Alberta: Adult Interdependent Partners

Alberta does not use the term common-law spouse in its legislation. Instead it defines an adult interdependent partner (AIP), someone who has lived with another person in a relationship of interdependence for 3 years, or for a shorter period if they have a child together, or who has signed a formal Adult Interdependent Partner Agreement at any point.

AIP status brings support obligations, and since January 1, 2020 it also brings property division rights, after the Family Property Act was extended to cover adult interdependent partners in addition to married spouses. Before that date, Alberta's property regime, like Ontario's today, did not automatically apply to unmarried couples. See our page on common-law relationships in Alberta for more.

Quebec: The Outlier

Quebec is structurally different from the rest of Canada. The Civil Code does not create a general common-law spousal status, and the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed in Quebec (Attorney General) v A, 2013 SCC 5 (commonly called Eric v Lola) that Quebec's exclusion of de facto spouses from the spousal support and property-division provisions available to married couples does not violate the Charter. De facto partners in Quebec have never had a statutory right to spousal support from each other, and that remains true today.

A 2025 reform narrowed, but did not eliminate, that gap on the property side only. Quebec's Bill 56 created the union parentale (parental union), a limited legal regime that came into force on June 30, 2025. It gives de facto couples who have a child born on or after that date a defined set of property protections modeled on parts of the patrimoine familial. It applies prospectively, based on the child's birth date, and it does not touch spousal support in any way. A de facto partner in Quebec, with or without the union parentale, still cannot claim spousal support from a former partner the way a married spouse or a common-law partner in most other provinces can.

Other Provinces at a Glance

Saskatchewan and Manitoba are generally closer to British Columbia than to Ontario on the property question: both provinces' family property statutes extend meaningful property-sharing rights to qualifying common-law partners, not just support, though the qualifying periods and mechanics differ from the married-spouse regime in each province. In the Atlantic provinces, the rules vary more, and the threshold used for support can differ from the threshold used for property under a separate statute. Nova Scotia is unusual in also offering a formal registered domestic partnership, which lets a couple opt into spousal-equivalent legal status without marrying, rather than waiting to meet a cohabitation period.

Because this detail changes by province and can change again with legislative amendments, always confirm the current cohabitation period and the current statute in the province where you actually live, not where you may have lived previously.

When There Is No Statutory Property Regime: Unjust Enrichment

In provinces or situations where a common-law partner has no automatic right to share in property, for example an Ontario common-law partner outside the constructive-trust route, or a Quebec de facto partner outside the narrow union parentale, the fallback remedy is the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment.

The Supreme Court of Canada's leading modern statement is Kerr v Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, which confirmed that a claimant can seek a monetary award, or in some cases an interest in specific property through a constructive trust, by showing the other partner was enriched, the claimant suffered a corresponding deprivation, and there is no legal reason for the enrichment. Kerr v Baranow also recognized the joint family venture concept, allowing courts to look at the whole economic partnership of a long relationship, including domestic contributions, rather than tracing every dollar to a specific asset. This is a case-by-case equitable claim, not an automatic entitlement, and the outcome depends heavily on the evidence of each relationship.

Common Law for Tax Purposes Is a Different Test

The Canada Revenue Agency uses its own definition of common-law partner for income tax and benefit purposes, and it does not line up with any of the family-law thresholds above. For CRA purposes, a couple is generally considered common-law after living together continuously for 12 months, or sooner if they have a child together by birth or adoption. This is a tax-filing status that affects benefits, credits, and reporting obligations, not a family-law status that determines support or property rights.

This mismatch causes real confusion. A couple can be common-law for CRA purposes after one year, long before they meet Ontario's 3-year support threshold or have any property-division rights at all outside British Columbia and Alberta. Being required to file taxes as common-law partners does not, by itself, create or prove any family-law entitlement.

Why a Cohabitation Agreement Matters More Without a Marriage

Because common-law rights are so uneven across the country and so much weaker than married spouses' rights in provinces like Ontario and Quebec, a written cohabitation agreement carries more weight for an unmarried couple than a prenuptial agreement typically does for a married one. It can define, in advance, how property will be treated, whether either partner will pay support, and how jointly acquired assets will be divided, filling gaps that the provincial default rules leave open, especially in a province with no automatic property regime.

To be enforceable, an agreement of this kind generally needs to be in writing, signed, and witnessed, made with full financial disclosure between the partners, and ideally supported by independent legal advice for each side. Courts have set aside domestic contracts, including support waivers, where there was material non-disclosure or unfairness in how the agreement was reached; see Rick v Brandsema, 2009 SCC 10 and Miglin v Miglin, 2003 SCC 24. A partner considering separation should also review our page on separation agreements in Canada, and a partner assessing what support might look like should see spousal support in Canada and the Canada spousal support calculator. Where children are involved, child support obligations apply regardless of whether the parents were ever married or met any common-law threshold; see our Canada child support resources and the child support calculator.

Disclaimer: This article explains general legal information about common-law and de facto relationships across Canada and is not legal advice. Cohabitation thresholds, support entitlement, and property rights depend on the specific facts of a relationship and the province involved. Consult a licensed family law lawyer in your province before relying on any of this to make a decision.