Difference between revisions of "Unmarried Spouses"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
620 bytes added ,  14:31, 22 March 2013
no edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Family Relationships > Unmarried Spouses
{{JP Boyd on Family Law TOC|expanded = relationships}}
{{JP Boyd on Family Law TOC|expanded = relationships}}


The provincial Family Relations Act defines "spouse" as including married spouses and unmarried couples, providing that the unmarried couple has lived together in a "marriage-like relationship" for at least two years. As the federal Divorce Act only applies to married couples, the only rules that apply when unmarried relationships end are set out in the Family Relations Act and in the common law, usually the law of trusts.
The provincial ''Family Law Act'' defines ''spouse'' as including married spouses and unmarried couples, providing that the unmarried couple has lived together in a "marriage-like relationship" for at least two years, or lived together for less than two years if they have had a child. Because the federal ''Divorce Act'' only applies to married spouses, all of the rules that apply when unmarried relationships end are found in the ''Family Law Act''.
 
This page talks about what it means to be in an unmarried spousal relationship, and looks at how the issues of spousal support, children and child support, and assets and debts are usually dealt with. This page also discusses unmarried spouses' entitlement to government benefits.
 
This page only discussed the legal issues involved in the end of an unmarried relationship. The ______ page talks about the emotional issues that come up when a relationship ends and how those issues can impact on the resolution of the legal issues.
 
==Introduction==


This chapter provides a brief overview of what it means to be in a common-law relationship, and looks at how the issues of spousal support, children and child support, and assets and debts are usually dealt with. This chapter also discusses common-law spouses' entitlement to government benefits.
The legal rights and responsibilities people in an unmarried relationship owe to each other are described in different laws, and different laws have different definitions of what it means to be a ''spouse'' or a ''common-law partner''; a couple might meet the test under one law but not under another. The really important question is this: ''Do I qualify as a 'spouse' under this particular piece of legislation?''


This chapter only covers the legal issues that come up when common-law relationships end. The Marriage & Divorce > Separating Emotionally chapter talks about the emotional issues that come up at the end of a long-term relationship and how those issues can impact on the resolution of the legal issues.
As a result, although married couples are always married spouses, unmarried couples aren't always unmarried spouses. For example, the federal ''Income Tax Act'' defines spouse as including people who have cohabited for one year, while the provincial ''Employment and Assistance Act'' defines spouse as including people living together for three months if the welfare case worker believed that their relationship demonstrated "financial dependence or interdependence, and social and familial interdependence".


I. Introduction
Regardless of a couple's federal or provincial status under these rules, it is not true that being an unmarried spouse or common-law partner means that you are legally married. Being married involves a formal ceremony and certain other legal requirements like a marriage licence. Without that ceremony and that licence, unmarried spouses will never be married, no matter how long they've lived together.


(Incidentally, the law in British Columbia doesn't talk about people who are common-law spouses and never has. Once upon a time, people could marry each other and create a legal relationship simply by agreeing to marry, without getting a licence from the government or having a particular kind of ceremony. Because the rights between the spouses came from common law principles, these were known as common-law marriages. Common-law marriages were valid in England until the Marriage Act of 1753, better known by its full flowery name, An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage. Please don't use this term. It doesn't mean what most people think it means and is two and a half centuries out of date.)
===Provincial Legislation===


The Family Relations Act defines "spouse" as including unmarried people who have cohabited for at least two years in a marriage-like relationship as well as legally married spouses. The Family Relations Act doesn't talk about common-law relationships, just about who is a spouse and who isn't, but for our purposes qualifying as a spouse is about as good a definition of a common-law relationship as any.
For most provincial laws, the test is whether or not a particular couple are "spouses". Qualifying as a spouse might mean that you are entitled to the family rate for MSP, that you can share in your spouse's estate in the event your spouse dies or that you are no longer entitled to social assistance.


The most important thing to understand about "being common-law" is that it means nothing more than qualifying as a spouse for the purposes of a specific piece of legislation, and that's it. Being in a common-law relationship means only that your relationship is such that you qualify for a particular benefit or a particular obligation under the terms of a particular statute. As a result, the real question about whether you are in a common-law relationship is "do I qualify as a spouse for the purpose of _________ legislation?," and whether you qualify or not will change from statute to statute.
In general, for most but not all provincial laws you must have lived with your partner for at least two years to qualify as a spouse. (The laws about sharing in a spouse's property after his or her death also require the spouses to have been living together at the time of your spouse's death.) Here's the definition from…


As a result, while married couples are always married spouses, common-law couples aren't always common-law spouses. For example, the federal Income Tax Act defines "spouse" as including people who have cohabited for one year, while the the provincial Employment and Assistance Act defined "spouse" as including people living together for three months if the welfare case worker believed that their relationship demonstrated "financial dependence or interdependence, and social and familial interdependence." These are the general rules:


Federal Laws: Common-law couples are normally concerned with federal legislation because of benefits which are administered by the federal government, such as the Canada Pension Plan. Federal legislation often distinguishes between spouses, people who are legally married, and common-law partners, who aren't.
Here's the definition from s. 3 of the ''Family Law Act'':
Provincial Laws: Provincial legislation, on the other hand, deals with both benefits and the rights and obligations a common-law couple have because of their relationship. Both married and common-law couples are spouses.
Federal Laws: In general, you must have lived with your partner for at least one year to qualify as a common-law partner.
Provincial Laws: In general, you must have lived with your partner for at least two years to qualify as a spouse. Wills and estates legislation also usually requires you to also have been living together at the time of your partner's death.
Regardless of your federal or provincial status under these rules, it is not true that being a common-law spouse means that you are legally married. Being married involves a formal ceremony and certain other legal requirements like a marriage licence. Without that ceremony and that licence a common-law couple will never be married, no matter how long they've lived together.


As far as matters of family law are concerned, the federal Divorce Act only applies to couples who are or have been legally married to each other. The Family Relations Act and certain principles of the common law are the only game in town.
<blockquote><tt> (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote><tt> (a) is married to another person, or</tt></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote><tt> (b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and</tt></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><tt> (i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or</tt></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><tt> (ii) except in Parts 5 and 6, has a child with the other person. </tt></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt> (2) A spouse includes a former spouse. </tt></blockquote>


A. Qualifying as a Spouse: Cohabitation for Two Years
===Federal Legislation===
This requirement of a common-law relationship is fairly self-explanatory. The only thing that needs to be pointed out is that the two year period doesn't need to be continuous. On the other hand, if a claim is based on the parties being common-law spouses, the court will probably examine the nature of the relationship in more detail. A gap of a three of years in the middle of the the two years a couple are supposed to have lived together probably won't cut it.


B. Qualifying as a Spouse: a Marriage-Like Relationship
Most federal laws distinguish between ''spouses'', people who are legally married, and ''common-law partners'', who aren't. Qualifying as a common-law partner might mean that you are entitled to a share of your partner's CPP credits or Old Age Security survivor's benefits.
This is more complex than the calculation of the duration of a relationship, partly because it calls for the court to make a decision about the nature of the parties' private, personal relationship with one another. In a 1998 case called Takacs v. Gallo, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia endorsed these considerations:
 
In general, you must have lived with your partner for at least one year to qualify as a common-law partner. Here's the definition from the ''Old Age Security Act'':
 
<blockquote><tt>"common-law partner", in relation to an individual, means a person who is cohabiting with the individual in a conjugal relationship at the relevant time, having so cohabited with the individual for a continuous period of at least one year.</tt></blockquote>
 
Here's the definition from:
 
 
===Common-Law Spouses===
 
The law in British Columbia doesn't talk about people who are ''common-law spouses'' and never has. Once upon a time, people could marry each other and create a legal relationship simply by agreeing to marry, without getting a licence from the government or having a particular kind of ceremony. Because the rights between the spouses came from principles established by the common law, these were known as common-law marriages. Common-law marriages were valid in England until the ''Marriage Act'' of 1753, better known by its full flowery name, ''An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage''.
 
 
Please don't use this term. It doesn't mean what most people think it means and is two and a half centuries out of date.)
 
==Qualifying as an Unmarried Spouse==
 
===Living Together for Two Years===
 
This requirement of a common-law relationship is fairly self-explanatory. The only thing that needs to be pointed out is that the two year period doesn't need to be continuous. On the other hand, if a claim is based on the parties being common-law spouses, the court will probably examine the nature of the relationship in more detail. A gap of a three of years in the middle of the two years a couple are supposed to have lived together probably won't cut it.
 
===A Marriage-Like Relationship===
 
This is more complex than the calculation of the duration of a relationship, partly because it calls for the court to make a decision about the nature of the parties' private, personal relationship with one another. In a 1998 case called ''Takacs v. Gallo'', the Court of Appeal endorsed these considerations:


Shelter:
Shelter:
Line 43: Line 73:
Children:
Children:
What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?
What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?
In a nutshell, where common-law status is disputed, the court will enquire as to how the couple represented themselves to their family and friends, and as to the nature of their financial relationship and household relationship. Did the couple present themselves as a family unit and conduct their personal affairs as a family unit? The judge in a 2003 case from Saskatchewan, Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, expressed the difficulty of determining what is and what is not a marriage-like relationship this way:
In a nutshell, where common-law status is disputed, the court will enquire as to how the couple represented themselves to their family and friends, and as to the nature of their financial relationship and household relationship. Did the couple present themselves as a family unit and conduct their personal affairs as a family unit? The judge in a 2003 case from Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, ''Yakiwchuk v. Oaks'', expressed the difficulty of determining what is and what is not a marriage-like relationship this way:


"Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property — in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important — for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their 'spouse' by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some 'spouses' do everything together — others do nothing together. Some 'spouses' vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some 'spouses' have children — others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a 'spousal relationship' exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of 'public' declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to 'be together'. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people 'ease into' situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist."
"Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property — in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important — for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their 'spouse' by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some 'spouses' do everything together — others do nothing together. Some 'spouses' vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some 'spouses' have children — others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a 'spousal relationship' exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of 'public' declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to 'be together'. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people 'ease into' situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist."
To be clear, though, mere roommates will never qualify as common-law spouses. There needs to be some other dimension to the relationship indicative of a committment between the parties and their shared belief that they are in a special relationship with each other.
To be clear, though, mere roommates will never qualify as common-law spouses. There needs to be some other dimension to the relationship indicative of a committment between the parties and their shared belief that they are in a special relationship with each other.


C. Limitation Periods for Support
=== Time Limits===
While a claim for child support with respect to a child of the parties will remain open until the child reaches the age of 19, and possibly longer, there are three important things you need to know about claims for spousal support and claims for child support against stepparents:
While a claim for child support with respect to a child of the parties will remain open until the child reaches the age of 19, and possibly longer, there are three important things you need to know about claims for spousal support and claims for child support against stepparents:


Line 56: Line 87:
In terms of when a relationship is considered to have ended, a recent case of the British Columbia Supreme Court took the view that the "marriage-like" quality a common-law relationship must have is fundamental to the nature of the relationship, and thus to the date from which the limitation period will begin to run. As a result a the marriage-like quality of a relationship can end before a couple physically separates, and the limitiation period will run from that date rather than the date someone moves out.
In terms of when a relationship is considered to have ended, a recent case of the British Columbia Supreme Court took the view that the "marriage-like" quality a common-law relationship must have is fundamental to the nature of the relationship, and thus to the date from which the limitation period will begin to run. As a result a the marriage-like quality of a relationship can end before a couple physically separates, and the limitiation period will run from that date rather than the date someone moves out.


Back to the top of this chapter.
====Effect of Dispute Resolution Processes====
 
s. 198
 
====Effect of Attempts to Reconcile====
 
Property


II. Spousal Support
==Rights and Responsibilities of Unmarried Spouses==


Providing a couple qualify as spouses, either party is entitled to seek an order for spousal support under the Family Relations Act. The same principles apply to spouses from common-law relationships as apply to married spouses: the party claiming support must be able to show that he or she is financially dependant on the other party because of the way the couple chose to live during the relationship, that he or she has suffered an economic disadvantage arising from the relationship, or that he or she has suffered an economic disadvantage arising from the breakdown of the relationship. The simple fact of having been in a common-law relationship does not guarantee that spousal support will be paid; the person seeking support must establish that he or she is entitled to support.
Providing a couple qualify as spouses, either party is entitled to seek an order for spousal support under the Family Relations Act. The same principles apply to spouses from common-law relationships as apply to married spouses: the party claiming support must be able to show that he or she is financially dependant on the other party because of the way the couple chose to live during the relationship, that he or she has suffered an economic disadvantage arising from the relationship, or that he or she has suffered an economic disadvantage arising from the breakdown of the relationship. The simple fact of having been in a common-law relationship does not guarantee that spousal support will be paid; the person seeking support must establish that he or she is entitled to support.

Navigation menu