Common-Law Relationships in Saskatchewan: Rights and Property

Saskatchewan does not have one common-law test, it has two, and they answer different questions. The Family Property Act requires 2 full years of continuous cohabitation before a common-law partner has any property claim at all, with no shortcut for couples who have a child together, while the separate Family Maintenance Act, 1997 lets a couple with a child together qualify for spousal support sooner. Mixing the two up is the single easiest mistake to make about common-law rights in this province.

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

Two Statutes, Two Different Answers to "Are We Common-Law"

Saskatchewan, like British Columbia and Alberta, does not use "common law" as a defined legal term. It uses "spouse." What makes Saskatchewan different is that it does not have one definition of "spouse" that covers everything. It has two, written into two different Acts, and the tests are not the same.

For property, under The Family Property Act, SS 1997, c F-6.3, section 2(1):

"spouse" means either of two persons who ... is cohabiting or has cohabited with the other person as spouses continuously for a period of not less than two years.

There is no child-together shortcut anywhere in that definition. Two years of continuous cohabitation, full stop.

For support, under The Family Maintenance Act, 1997, SS 1997, c F-6.2, section 2:

"spouse" means ... a person who has cohabited with another person as spouses: (i) continuously for a period of not less than two years; or (ii) in a relationship of some permanence, if they are the parents of a child.

The child-together shortcut lives here, and only here. This inverts a pattern that shows up in other provinces. In British Columbia, for example, having a child together opens the door to spousal support before the 2-year mark, but is specifically excluded from property and pension division. Saskatchewan goes further: the child-together route does not exist for property at all, not even in a limited or delayed form. A couple with a child together but under 2 years of cohabitation can apply for maintenance, but they have no statutory standing to claim a share of property under The Family Property Act, period.

For how this compares to how other provinces draw the line, see our overview of common-law relationships across Canada.

Property Division: Full Parity, But Only After 2 Full Years

Once a common-law partner clears the 2-year continuous-cohabitation threshold, The Family Property Act treats them exactly like a married spouse. There is no separate, lesser property regime once you qualify:

The purpose of this Act ... is to recognize that child care, household management and financial provision are the joint and mutual responsibilities of spouses ... that entitles each spouse to an equal distribution of the family property, subject to the exceptions, exemptions and equitable considerations mentioned in this Act.

On application, a court "shall" order that family property be distributed equally between the spouses. Unequal division is available only where an equal split would be "unfair and inequitable," weighed against a list of factors that includes any agreement between the spouses, the length of cohabitation, contributions by third parties, career impact, and dissipation of assets.

The Limitation Period Only Applies to the Common-Law Route

Here is a detail that is easy to miss: the 24-month deadline for a property claim applies specifically to spouses who qualify through the common-law cohabitation clause, not to married spouses under the same section. An application by a person who is a spouse through 2 years of cohabitation must be brought within 24 months after the cohabitation ceases. Married spouses are not held to that same clock in this part of the Act. If you were common-law and the relationship has ended, treat that 24-month window as a real deadline, not a rough guideline.

Spousal Support (Maintenance) Has No Time Limit At All

This is the sharpest contrast in Saskatchewan's law, and worth its own callout. Under The Family Maintenance Act, 1997, a court can order a person to provide maintenance for their spouse, based on need, to the extent the paying spouse is capable. The Act's stated objectives echo the federal Divorce Act model: recognizing economic advantage or disadvantage arising from the relationship or its breakdown, relieving economic hardship, and promoting self-sufficiency within a reasonable time. The amount of support, once entitlement is established, is shaped by factors like age and health, the length of cohabitation, ability to become self-sufficient, and any other support obligations.

Unlike the property claim, a maintenance claim under this Act has no limitation period whatsoever. Section 26 states plainly that, notwithstanding The Limitations Act, there is no limitation period for proceedings under the Family Maintenance Act. So a Saskatchewan common-law partner who waits past 24 months from separation can lose the right to claim property entirely, while the right to seek support does not expire under this Act.

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

If Your Common-Law Partner Dies Without a Will

Saskatchewan's The Intestate Succession Act, 2019, SS 2019, c I-13.2, uses its own version of the spouse definition, and it includes a grace period the other two Acts don't have. Under section 2, a "spouse" includes a person who cohabited with the deceased as spouses continuously for at least 2 years, and who either was still cohabiting with the deceased at death, or had ceased to cohabit within the 24 months before the death.

That means a common-law partner who separated from the deceased up to 24 months before the death can still count as a "spouse" for intestacy purposes, something neither the property nor the support definition offers. Once qualified, the entitlement mirrors what a married spouse would get:

• If there are no descendants, the entire estate goes to the surviving spouse.
• If there are descendants who are all also the spouse's own descendants, the entire estate goes to the spouse.
• If some descendants are not the spouse's own, the spouse gets a "prescribed amount" off the top of the estate (charged against the estate with interest), then splits the residue with the descendants: half the residue if there is one child, or a third if there is more than one.

That "prescribed amount" is $200,000, confirmed directly against the regulation's own text: The Intestate Succession Regulations, I-13.2 Reg 1, section 3(1)-(2), effective October 1, 2019, states that if the net value of the estate does not exceed $200,000, the entire estate goes to the spouse, and if it exceeds $200,000, the spouse is entitled to the greater of $200,000 or half the net value of the estate.

Saskatchewan's intestacy rules also disqualify a spouse, married or common-law, if the couple had been living separate and apart for more than 2 years at the time of death, were opposing parties to a court proceeding at death, or had a finalized separation agreement or order, subject to a reconciliation exception and a rule addressing a spouse who had moved on to a new spousal relationship.

For how intestacy works more broadly in Canada, see our guide to dying without a will, and for how to avoid it 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 Saskatchewan. The CRA generally treats a couple as common-law for tax purposes after 12 months of cohabitation, or sooner with a shared child, which lines up with neither of Saskatchewan's own 2-year provincial tests. Qualifying as common-law with the CRA doesn't mean you qualify as a "spouse" under either Saskatchewan Act, and vice versa.

Interspousal Contracts: A Stricter Signing Rule Than Some Provinces

Saskatchewan's mechanism for a couple to set their own rules is called an interspousal contract, under section 38 of The Family Property Act, and it is open to any "spouse," which by the Act's own definition already includes a qualifying 2-year common-law partner. To be binding, the contract has to be in writing and signed by each partner in front of a witness, and each partner has to separately acknowledge, in writing, that they understand the contract, understand the statutory claims they might otherwise have, and intend to give those claims up. That acknowledgment has to be made before a different lawyer than the one advising the other partner. That "different lawyer for each side" requirement is a specific statutory mandate here, stricter than a general recommendation to get independent legal advice.

No separate Vital Statistics registration scheme for common-law relationships was found among the Acts researched for this page; status in Saskatchewan is proven by the facts of cohabitation, not by filing anything.

For more on how these agreements are drafted, see our guide to separation agreements in Canada.

How Saskatchewan Compares

Saskatchewan's split-definition approach, one test for property, a different and more forgiving one for support, is a genuinely distinct pattern in this country's patchwork of common-law rules. It is the opposite of British Columbia, where the child-together shortcut at least reaches spousal support before excluding property and pensions by name; in Saskatchewan the child-together route was never written into the property statute in the first place. For how neighbouring provinces handle the same questions, see our guides to common-law relationships in Alberta and common-law relationships in Ontario.

Disclaimer

This article provides general information about Saskatchewan family law and is not legal advice. It reflects our reading of The Family Property Act, The Family Maintenance Act, 1997, The Intestate Succession Act, 2019, and The Intestate Succession Regulations as consolidated to August 2026. The practical application of the "unfair and inequitable" unequal-division standard was not tested against case law in our research. Consult a licensed Saskatchewan family law lawyer about your specific situation.