Common Law Rights
Experienced Common Law Lawyers
Millions of Canadians live in common law relationships under the assumption that the law treats them the same as married couples. In some respects it does. In others, it does not — and the gaps between those two realities can have significant financial consequences when a relationship ends.
At Cochrane Family Law, we advise individuals throughout Cochrane and the surrounding area on their legal rights and obligations arising from common law relationships — both during the relationship and after it ends. Whether you are separating from a long-term partner, trying to understand what you are entitled to, or simply want to know where you stand before something goes wrong, we provide the clear, honest legal advice that this area of law genuinely requires.
Common law rights in Alberta are more complex than most people realize. Understanding them is the first step toward protecting them.
What Is A Common Law Relationship Under Alberta Law?
The term “common law” is used loosely in everyday conversation — but in Alberta, it has specific legal meaning that determines what rights and obligations apply to a couple who has never married.
Alberta’s Family Law Act uses the term adult interdependent partner to describe individuals in a qualifying common law relationship. A person is an adult interdependent partner if they have lived with another person in a relationship of interdependence for a continuous period of at least three years, or if they have lived together in a relationship of some permanence and have a child together, or if they have entered into an adult interdependent partner agreement.
The three-year threshold is the most commonly applicable — and it is worth understanding what “interdependence” actually means in this context. It is not simply cohabitation. It refers to a relationship in which the parties share one another’s lives, are economically and domestically interdependent, and present themselves as a couple. Courts look at the substance of the relationship, not merely the fact of shared accommodation.
Once a relationship meets the adult interdependent partner threshold, a significant range of legal rights and obligations apply — in areas including support, inheritance, property, and decision-making authority. Understanding which rights apply, and under what circumstances, is the starting point for any legal advice we provide in this area.
Where Common Law Rights Mirror Marriage — And Where They Don't
This is the heart of the matter for most people seeking advice on common law rights — and it is where confusion most frequently leads to genuine harm.
In several important areas, Alberta law treats adult interdependent partners in a manner very similar to married spouses. Spousal support obligations apply. Inheritance rights under the Wills and Succession Act apply, in the absence of a will. Next-of-kin decision-making authority in medical emergencies applies. Benefits entitlements under many pension plans and insurance policies apply. For couples in long-term, financially interdependent relationships, these rights are substantive and meaningful.
However — and this is a critically important distinction — Alberta’s Matrimonial Property Act does not apply to common law couples. This is the single most consequential legal difference between married and unmarried couples in Alberta, and it is the one that surprises people most often, at the worst possible moment.
What this means in practice is that when a common law relationship ends, there is no automatic right to an equal division of property. A spouse who spent ten years living in a home registered solely in their partner’s name has no automatic claim to half its value under the Matrimonial Property Act — because that statute simply does not apply to them. A partner who contributed their income to shared expenses while their spouse accumulated assets in their own name may have no straightforward entitlement to those assets — regardless of how long the relationship lasted or how financially intertwined their lives were.
This does not mean common law partners are without legal recourse when property is at issue. But the legal tools available to them are different, less straightforward, and significantly more dependent on the specific facts of the relationship. Understanding those tools — and knowing when and how to use them — is where experienced legal counsel becomes essential.
Unjust Enrichment: The Legal Doctrine That Fills The Gap
When the Matrimonial Property Act doesn’t apply and a common law partner has been left in a significantly worse financial position as a result of the relationship, the primary legal remedy available is a claim for unjust enrichment.
Unjust enrichment is a legal doctrine that applies when one party has been enriched at the expense of another, there is a corresponding deprivation suffered by the other party, and there is no juristic reason — no legal justification — for the enrichment to be retained. In the context of a common law relationship, this most commonly arises where one partner’s contributions — financial, domestic, or otherwise — have built up wealth that is held entirely in the other partner’s name.
A partner who paid the mortgage on a home they do not own while their spouse accumulated equity has a potential unjust enrichment claim. A partner who ran the household, raised the children, and enabled the other to build a career and accumulate assets may have a claim for the value of those contributions. A partner who invested their savings in a jointly used business that is registered solely in the other’s name has a potential claim for the return of that investment and the profits it generated.
Unjust enrichment claims are fact-intensive. They require careful documentation of contributions made, benefits received, and the connection between the two. They are not automatic — they must be advanced, supported with evidence, and argued before a court if the parties cannot reach agreement. But where the facts support them, they provide a meaningful avenue to a fair outcome that the Matrimonial Property Act would have delivered automatically to a married spouse in identical circumstances.
We assess unjust enrichment claims with rigour and honesty — advising our clients on the strength of their position, the evidence they will need, and the realistic range of outcomes before any steps are taken.
Spousal Support for Common Law Partners
As noted above, adult interdependent partners in Alberta have the same rights and obligations with respect to spousal support as married spouses. This surprises many people — both those who expected support and those who hoped to avoid it.
The legal analysis for spousal support in a common law context mirrors the analysis for married couples in most meaningful respects. Entitlement is assessed through the same three lenses — compensatory, non-compensatory, and contractual. The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines apply, using the length of cohabitation as the equivalent of length of marriage for formula purposes. Income determination, imputation, and the interaction with child support where children are involved are all addressed the same way.
What differs, in some cases, is the factual picture. Common law relationships sometimes involve less formal financial integration than marriages — separate bank accounts, separate ownership of major assets, less clearly defined economic interdependence. These facts are relevant to the entitlement analysis and can affect both the strength of a support claim and the quantum that is appropriate.
They do not, however, necessarily defeat a support claim. A long-term common law relationship in which one partner clearly subordinated their career to care for children or support the other’s professional life generates a compensatory support claim that is no weaker simply because the parties never married. The law is clear on this point, and we apply it clearly to our clients’ situations.
The Family Home in a Common Law Relationship
For many common law couples, the family home is the most significant shared asset — and the question of what happens to it when the relationship ends is among the most urgent they face.
Unlike married spouses, common law partners do not have an automatic right to possession of the family home, nor an automatic entitlement to share in its value, unless their name is on title. The Matrimonial Property Act protections that apply to the matrimonial home — equal right to possession regardless of ownership, presumption of equal division of the value accrued during the marriage — simply do not exist for unmarried couples.
This means that a common law partner whose name is not on the title of the family home is in a fundamentally more vulnerable legal position than a married spouse in identical circumstances. Their claim to the home, or to the equity it represents, must be established through other legal avenues — most commonly unjust enrichment, constructive trust, or resulting trust — rather than through a straightforward statutory entitlement.
If both partners are on title, the situation is more straightforward — but questions still arise about how the equity is divided, how the outstanding mortgage is handled, and what happens if one partner wants to remain in the home and the other wants to sell. These are questions with real legal answers that depend on the specific facts, and they are questions we work through carefully with every client in this situation.
If you are in a common law relationship and your name is not on the title of the home you share, understanding your legal position — before the relationship ends — is one of the most protective steps you can take.
Children in Common Law Relationships
When a common law relationship involves children, the legal framework governing custody, parenting time, and child support is identical to that which applies to married couples. The marital status of the parents is irrelevant to the rights and obligations that exist with respect to their children.
Both parents have equal standing before Alberta’s courts. Child support is calculated using the same Federal Child Support Guidelines that apply in divorce proceedings. Parenting arrangements are assessed using the same best interests of the child standard. The process for establishing orders — whether by consent or through contested proceedings — is the same.
What occasionally differs in common law parenting disputes is the factual context. Where paternity is disputed, or where one partner was not biologically related to the child but played a parenting role throughout the relationship, additional legal questions may arise about who has standing to seek parenting rights and what obligations attach to a non-biological parent. These are nuanced questions with fact-specific answers, and they are ones we are experienced in navigating.
If you are a parent in a common law relationship — whether you are separating now or anticipating that possibility — understanding your parental rights and obligations is no different in legal importance from the same exercise for any married parent. The law protects your children equally. We make sure you can access that protection effectively.
Protecting Yourself in a Common Law Relationship: The Case for a Cohabitation Agreement
The most effective way to address the legal complexities of a common law relationship is to document the parties’ intentions and agreements in a cohabitation agreement — before a dispute arises, not after.
A cohabitation agreement is a legally binding contract between common law partners that sets out how property will be owned and divided, whether support will be payable on separation, how shared expenses will be handled during the relationship, and any other financial or practical arrangements the parties want to govern their life together. It provides the legal clarity that Alberta’s property statutes don’t automatically extend to unmarried couples — and it does so on terms that both parties have chosen, rather than terms imposed by a court after the fact.
Cohabitation agreements are particularly valuable where the parties are entering the relationship with significantly different financial situations — where one owns a home, a business, or substantial assets that they want to protect; where one will be leaving employment to care for children and wants to ensure that sacrifice is recognized; or where one or both parties have children from previous relationships whose interests need to be considered.
The conversation about a cohabitation agreement can feel uncomfortable — it requires both parties to confront the possibility that the relationship may not last, at a time when optimism is the natural state. But the couples who have that conversation, and who document their intentions clearly at the outset, spare themselves an enormous amount of uncertainty, conflict, and expense if the relationship does eventually end.
We draft cohabitation agreements that are comprehensive, fair, and legally sound — and we advise each party to seek independent legal advice before signing, which is the most reliable protection against the agreement being challenged later.
Cochrane Family Law: Clear Advice When The Law Is Anything But
Common law rights in Alberta occupy a legal space that is more complex, more fact-dependent, and more frequently misunderstood than almost any other area of family law. The people who need advice in this area often don’t know they need it until circumstances force the question — and by then, decisions may already have been made that are difficult to undo.
We provide clear, honest advice at every stage of a common law relationship — whether you are entering one and want to understand your position, navigating a separation and need to know what you are entitled to, or facing a dispute over property or children and need someone to advance your interests effectively.
Our clients receive direct access to their lawyer, plain-language explanations of a genuinely complex legal landscape, and the confidence that comes from knowing their situation has been assessed carefully and accurately. We do not tell people what they want to hear. We tell them what the law actually says — and then we help them use it.
If you are in a common law relationship and have questions about your legal rights, the best time to get those answers is before you need them urgently. The second best time is now.