Common-Law Relationships in the Territories: Yukon, NWT, and Nunavut

Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut do not run the same common-law law. Yukon gives common-law partners no property rights at all, the Northwest Territories gives full parity with marriage under one unified definition, and Nunavut likely follows the Northwest Territories but has real unverified gaps in what could be confirmed against its own statute text.

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

Why This Page Cannot Treat "The Territories" As One Law

It would be easy to assume that Yukon, the Northwest Territories (NWT), and Nunavut share roughly the same common-law rules, since all three are small, low-population jurisdictions often grouped together. That assumption is wrong, and wrong in a way that matters for real people's rights. On property division alone, the one issue with the clearest research across all three territories, Yukon and NWT sit at opposite ends of the spectrum found across every Canadian jurisdiction surveyed on this site: Yukon gives common-law partners no statutory property regime whatsoever, while NWT gives them full parity with married spouses. A Yukon reader who assumes they have NWT-style rights would be seriously misled. Each territory is covered separately below. For how the rest of Canada compares, see common-law relationships across Canada.

Yukon: The Least Generous Common-Law Law in This Survey

No Property Division for Common-Law Partners, Full Stop

Yukon's Family Property and Support Act, RSY 2002, c.83 (FPSA), defines "spouse" in section 1 using only married-couple language: legally married, voidably or void-but-good-faith married, or a party to a polygamous marriage valid where it was performed. No cohabitation clause appears in this definition.

A 1998 amending act was drafted to add a 12-month cohabitation clause to this definition, but that amendment's own commencement clause made it conditional on a later proclamation, and it does not appear in the current consolidated text. This strongly suggests the cohabitation clause was drafted but never brought into force. That reading is independently supported by the Yukon Public Legal Education Association's public guide to separation law, which states plainly in its own comparison table that property division is not available to common-law partners in Yukon, only spousal support is.

In practice, this means an unmarried partner in Yukon who wants a share of property built up during the relationship has no statutory shortcut at all. Their only route is an equitable claim, unjust enrichment or a constructive trust under the framework the Supreme Court of Canada set out in Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, used across Canada for unmarried couples outside a statutory regime, the same framework that applies in provinces like Ontario where property division is also married-spouses-only.

Spousal Support: Available, But With No Fixed Minimum Duration

Support works differently from property. FPSA section 37 lets a common-law partner, someone who has cohabited in a relationship of some permanence without being married, apply to a court for a support order. Unlike every provincial threshold surveyed for this site, Yukon's support test sets no numeric minimum cohabitation period at all. It leaves "relationship of some permanence" for the court to assess case by case.

The deadline to apply for support changed recently. According to a dated fact sheet from the Law Society of Yukon, an amending act that took effect March 1, 2022 removed the old three-month deadline for common-law partners to apply for support after separating. For separations on or after that date, there is now no deadline. Partners who separated before March 1, 2022 remain subject to the old three-month window. The fact sheet is explicit that this amendment changed nothing else about the Act, so it does not affect the property-division finding above.

One unresolved point is worth flagging honestly: a direct read of section 37's archived text still shows the old three-month language with no visible amendment marked. Given the Law Society's specific, dated citation to a named amending act, that account is treated here as the more current statement of the law, but this is exactly the kind of specific deadline a reader should confirm on Yukon's live legislation site, or with a lawyer, before relying on it.

Dying Without a Will: No Automatic Share, Only a Discretionary Court Allowance

This is arguably the most important fact on this page if a Yukon reader were to miss it. The Estate Administration Act, RSY 2002, c.77, separately defines a "common law spouse" (a person who has cohabited as a couple for at least 12 months immediately before the other person's death) from the plain "spouse" term the Act uses in its automatic intestacy distribution rules. Because the automatic-share provisions use only the plain, undefined "spouse" and never the separately defined "common law spouse," a common-law partner in Yukon gets nothing automatically when their partner dies without a will.

Instead, a separate provision lets a surviving common-law spouse apply to a court, which MAY order that some portion of the estate, whatever amount the court sees fit, be set aside for the common-law spouse's support and benefit. This application must be started no later than six months after letters of administration are issued. That is a fully discretionary allowance, similar to a dependant's-relief claim, not an inheritance formula, and it stands in sharp contrast to provinces where a qualifying common-law partner gets an automatic statutory share identical or near-identical to a married spouse's.

Practical Notes for Yukon

No government registration scheme comparable to Manitoba's was found for Yukon. Given the statutory gap on property described above, a private cohabitation agreement is arguably more important for a Yukon common-law couple than in almost any other jurisdiction surveyed for this site, since there is no fallback statutory property regime to rely on if the couple does not put their own terms in writing. See our guide to separation agreements in Canada for how these agreements work.

Northwest Territories: Full Parity Under One Unified Definition

One Test Covers Property, Support, and Inheritance

The Northwest Territories runs the opposite model from Yukon. Its Family Law Act, SNWT 1997, c.18, in force since November 1, 1998, defines "spouse" in section 1(1) to include a person who has lived in a conjugal relationship outside marriage with another person if either they have lived together for at least two years, or the relationship is one of some permanence and the couple are together the natural or adoptive parents of a child.

Critically, NWT applies this exact same definition to property division, not a narrower one. The Act's family property provisions explicitly incorporate the general spouse test into the equalization-of-net-family-property regime, rather than restricting property division to married spouses only, the trap some other Canadian jurisdictions fall into. This makes NWT structurally similar to British Columbia and Alberta's single-definition approach, but notably more generous than provinces that split their definitions by purpose.

Property Division: Full Equalization, With a Two-Year Limitation Period

Once a couple meets the two-year (or child-plus-permanence) test, they get access to the same equalization-of-net-family-property regime as married spouses. The limitation period is two years after separation, with no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation, or two years after a divorce or nullity, or six months after probate or letters of administration if the claim is against a deceased partner's estate. This closely matches the two-year model found in some western provinces.

Spousal Support

Support is available under the same unified spouse definition described above. The Act's support provisions were not confirmed section by section beyond establishing that entitlement flows from the same two-year or child-shortcut test that governs property.

Dying Without a Will: Automatic Parity, Plus an Election Option

The Intestate Succession Act, RSNWT 1988, c.I-10, defines "spouse" by direct reference to the Family Law Act's definition, so the same two-year or child-shortcut test applies to inheritance too, for deaths on or after November 1, 1998. Once qualified:

• If there is no issue, the entire estate goes to the surviving spouse.
• If there is issue and the net estate is $100,000 or less, the entire estate goes to the surviving spouse.
• If the net estate is greater than $100,000, the spouse gets $100,000 off the top, as a charge on the estate with legal interest, plus half the residue with one child, or a third with more than one child.
• The surviving spouse can also elect to take the family home itself instead of, or as part of, that $100,000.

That $100,000 figure was amended by territorial legislation that took effect January 31, 2017. A later 2023 territorial act (SNWT 2023, c.8) was checked directly and found to be a non-substantive cross-reference rename tied to the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation, not a change to this figure or to any of the other Family Law Act or Intestate Succession Act provisions described above, so $100,000 remains the current preferential share, unlike some of the figures reported for Nunavut below.

NWT also gives a surviving spouse, married or qualifying common-law, an election most other jurisdictions in this survey reserve for married spouses only: instead of taking under the will or intestacy, the survivor can elect within six months of probate or letters of administration to receive the family-property equalization entitlement instead, as though the relationship had ended by separation rather than death. Because NWT's spouse definition is unified, this election is open to a qualifying common-law partner just as it is to a married spouse.

Practical Notes for NWT

No registration scheme comparable to Manitoba's was identified for NWT, though given the unified statutory definition, the practical picture is likely closer to British Columbia's than to Yukon's or Manitoba's registration-based model. Cohabitation-agreement practice was not independently researched for this territory beyond the statutory framework above.

Nunavut: Likely Similar to NWT, But With Real Verification Gaps

Nunavut split from the Northwest Territories on April 1, 1999, and its Family Law Act, CSNu c.F-30, continued NWT's 1997 Family Law Act as its own statute at the point of the split. Nunavut's own legislation website could not be reached for this research pass, and no working archived copy of the underlying statute text could be located either, so the summary below is based on search-engine synthesis, not an independent read of Nunavut's current consolidated text. Treat everything in this section as a starting point for your own confirmation, not a settled fact, and expect Nunavut's online consolidations to lag behind its actual current law.

What is reported, with that caveat:

• Nunavut's "spouse" definition is reported to match NWT's original 1997 definition word for word (married, or two years of cohabitation, or a child together plus a relationship of some permanence), consistent with Nunavut simply inheriting NWT's statute at the 1999 split.
• Property division is reported as full parity for common-law partners, matching the NWT pattern.
• Spousal support is reported as available under the same test.

Where Nunavut appears to have genuinely diverged from NWT, and the single most important thing to verify before relying on it: sources describe Nunavut's intestacy preferential share as $50,000, not NWT's current $100,000. That is plausible on its own, since NWT's own figure sat at $50,000 before its 2015 to 2017 increase, and the two territories have amended their laws independently since splitting in 1999. More significantly, one source states that Nunavut requires a common-law partner to be a REGISTERED domestic partner under its Vital Statistics Act to qualify for intestacy at all, a materially more restrictive mechanism than NWT's automatic two-year test, and closer in structure to Manitoba's registration option than to NWT's model. This claim was reported by only one source, was not corroborated elsewhere, and directly contradicts the general "Nunavut equals NWT" assumption the rest of this section otherwise supports. It is presented here as an open question, not a confirmed fact, and no dollar figure or registration requirement for Nunavut should be relied on without checking Nunavut's current legislation or speaking with a Nunavut lawyer first.

Federal Programs Use Their Own Rules Everywhere

Across all three territories, federal programs run on separate definitions that do not follow territorial family law. The Canada Revenue Agency generally treats a couple as common-law for tax and benefit purposes after 12 months of continuous cohabitation, or sooner with a shared child, and CPP survivor benefits have their own federal test. Neither one tells you whether Yukon's, NWT's, or Nunavut's territorial statutes apply to your situation.

The Territories at a Glance

Disclaimer

This article provides general information about family law in Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, and is not legal advice. Several items here carry specific, named limits. Yukon's support-deadline change is stated based on the Law Society of Yukon's dated fact sheet, which conflicts with an older version of the statute text pulled for this research; confirm the current deadline before relying on it. Whether the Family Property and Support Act's gendered "man and woman" language in section 37 has since been updated by a gender-neutrality amendment was also not confirmed either way in this research. Nunavut's entire section is based on search-engine synthesis rather than an independent read of Nunavut's own consolidated statutes, since its legislation website could not be reached during this research; its reported $50,000 intestacy figure and the reported registered-partner requirement for intestacy are both unverified and should not be treated as settled law. Territorial online consolidations can lag behind the current in-force text. Laws in all three territories change, and outcomes depend on the specific facts of each relationship. Consult a licensed lawyer in the relevant territory about your situation.