Whether you’re already in a relationship, planning to share your life with your boyfriend or girlfriend, or just want some general information, here you’ll find information on the legal aspects of living together when you’re not married.
In Quebec, many people form families without marrying. Indeed, 35% of Quebecers prefer to live in a common-law relationship rather than marry, and 51% of Quebec couples under the age of 35 opt for common-law unions.
Statistics show that Quebecers know little about their rights when they choose to live together without being married and are therefore unaware of the legal consequences of their union. Buying a house or a car and applying for a loan have legal consequences when you’re not married; more importantly, these consequences aren’t governed by any law. Having the right information is key to making the right decisions, including the one about our life as a couple. We invite you to take the “Myths and realities” test below.
If you live as a couple without being married, a cohabitation contract is the ideal tool for organizing your life as a couple. A cohabitation contract will enable you to anticipate and prevent the hazards of life and protect your assets, family, priorities and lifestyle choices. Our firm can help you draw up a cohabitation contract.
Also, if you’ve lived as an unmarried couple and now wish to obtain financial compensation from your ex, or if you want to defend yourself against a claim for compensation by your ex, our firm can assist you in defending your rights.
Whatever your situation, don’t hesitate to contact us. Our team has extensive field experience and is familiar with litigation cases, so we can help you avoid pitfalls.

In around 1550, faced with clandestine marriages (with all their ancillary problems, including bigamy, divorce, marriage of children without parental consent), the Catholic Church decided to exercise greater control over the celebration of marriage. The Council of Trent required the publication of banns and the presence of the parish priest and another witness for the marriage to be recognized. The parish priest was also required to keep a register of marriages.
In Quebec, marriage was supported and protected by the Catholic Church. Outside the clergy, celibacy had very little place in French-Canadian society. Marriage ensured cultural continuity, encouraged fertility and guaranteed the survival of the French language in North America. Unmarried cohabitation was shunned as a social norm, and these “illegitimate” unions were seriously discouraged not only by the Church, but also by the State, whose leaders belonged to bourgeois families seeking to avoid inheritance disputes through illegitimate children.
During the constitutional debates of 1867, it was decided that the federal government would have jurisdiction over marriage, and the provinces over the solemnization of marriage. The French-Canadian clergy therefore retained control over how marriages were solemnized but were also the keepers of the registers. Therefore, information on births, marriages and deaths was kept by the Church. The Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths has only recently taken over from the Church! Until 1969, it was impossible to get married outside a church, synagogue or other recognized place of worship, because only religious authorities could keep marriage registers.
It was Quebec’s Catholic Church that asked for civil marriages (marriages outside places of worship) to be allowed. The Church realized that many couples were getting married in church out of obligation, not belief. The proof: in 1969, the proportion of religious marriages was 97.8%. By 2005, the proportion had fallen to 66.1%.
Romantic values came to the fore in the 20th century, and love became a crucial element in marriage. Forging bonds as a couple in the pursuit of happiness became much more important than forging bonds between two families simply to ensure the survival of an estate.
The 1950s brought the Quiet Revolution. With it came the rejection of the Church, the feminist movement, and women’s access to contraception, abortion and education. For its part, the union between man and woman was seen in a new light. Equal relationships within couples become essential. Moreover, it becomes acknowledged that marriages can end.
Until 1968, it was impossible to get a divorce in Canada. Divorces were only granted by a private act of Parliament in Ottawa. One had to be wealthy and have a good network of contacts to obtain one. In 1968, the first Divorce Act was passed, allowing divorce for the grounds of:
• adultery
• sodomy, bestiality, rape or an act of homosexuality
• one’s spouse being married to another person
• physical or mental cruelty
• spouses having lived apart for at least three years

In 1985, the Divorce Act underwent a major update; the current Divorce Act 1985 came into effect. As a society, we recognized that couple relationships aren’t eternal, and spouses and children must be protected in the event of a break-up. Obtaining a divorce became (is now) easier and more flexible after one year of separation Also, (and) the economic consequences of the break-up were (are) taken into account.
As a result, the number of common-law unions in Quebec continues to grow. Quebecers have started asking: “Why do I need the Church’s blessing if the essential element for a union is love?” And if my love relationship ends in divorce, why do I even need to get married? Marriage gets bad press in Quebec; Quebecers see it as based on obligation and, in the minds of many, especially women, on unequal relationships. Our society is even changing the words used to describe one’s loved one, with terms like “partner” and “significant other” replacing “husband” and “wife.” Society recognizes common-law partners.
Is marriage a dying institution in Quebec?
More Quebecers under 35 opt for common-law relationships than other their Canadian counterparts (51% vs. 29%).
29% of Quebecers choose a common-law relationship for their first union, 69% for a second union and 80% for a third union.
Family law reform has kicked off. Proposals call for changes to the status of common-law spouses, including imposing compensation when a couple has children and one of the parents has made financial sacrifices, and protecting the children’s residence.
This story is “to be continued”!

1493. A person who is enriched at the expense of another shall, to the extent of his enrichment, indemnify the other for the latter’s correlative impoverishment, if there is no justification for the enrichment or the impoverishment.

Thus, for an action for unjust enrichment to arise, the following three elements must be present:

i) Enrichment of one party,
ii) The absence of any legal reason for this enrichment,
iii) The correlative impoverishment of the other party.

Courts must be flexible in applying their analysis, and the principles must be applied according to the specific context of each case. In effect, the court has some discretion.
In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada, the country’s highest court, handed down a landmark judgment in Kerr v. Baranow (also known as Vanasse v. Séguin) 2011 SCC 10, and this ruling applies in Quebec.
The following is a summary of the facts in the case:

Ms. Vanasse lived with Mr. Séguin for 12 years, during which time they had two children. Both worked for the first four years of the relationship. However, Ms. Vanasse left her job to look after the children. A few years later, Mr. Seguin sold his company for $11 million and stopped working.
While they were living together, he gave her half the family home (residence) and contributed to her RRSPs. Following the break-up, the wife filed a claim for unjust enrichment.
The trial court awarded her almost $1 million. The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned this judgment, and the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the trial court’s decision.
Ms. Vanasse was entitled to half the value of the wealth accumulated by Mr. Vanasse during the time they lived together, less the value of his share of the family home (residence) and his RRSPs.
The principles of this judgment apply in Quebec. Recently, in Droit de la famille 182048, 2018 QCCS 4194, the Honourable Justice Robert Mongeon of the Superior Court awarded a former common-law spouse 20% of her ex-spouse’s wealth, because without her, he would not have been able to accumulate such assets. This ruling is now before the Court of Appeal, and a decision is pending.
Unjust enrichment claims are on the rise. The reform set in motion promises to deal with these situations, but nothing is certain yet. In the meantime, one solution to avoid disputes is to sign a cohabitation contract.
Our firm can assist you with your unjust enrichment claim, both as plaintiff and defendant.

This contract must be respected not only by the couple, but also by third parties (heirs, financial institution, etc.).

Here’s a look at Manon and Richard’s case. If the couple had signed a cohabitation contract recognizing the donation from Manon’s parents, there would have been no need for litigation, and the couple would have saved money, time and anguish.

Richard and Manon lived together for 15 years, without ever marrying. The couple initially rented the house belonging to Manon’s parents, which they hoped to buy one day. In 2001, the couple signed an option to purchase, followed by a promise to purchase four years later. The property was worth $280,000, but they bought it for $150,000. Manon’s parents wanted to help their daughter. The promise to purchase stated that the $130,000 was a donation of equity from Manon’s parents, and the house was purchased in Manon and Richard’s name.

Three months later, the couple’s life together ended abruptly. Manon wantsed to be declared the sole owner of the house as a benefit of her parents’ donation. Richard claims that the word “donation” in the promise to purchase was used solely to obtain a mortgage from the bank. Manon had to take legal action to get the house back. Fortunately for Manon and her parents, the Court recognized that the $130,000 was a donation to Manon, not to the couple, otherwise Manon would have been obliged to share both the immovable and the donation with Richard:
Guertin v. Blanchette, 755-17-000637-069, October 30, 2008, Judge Hélène Poulin

Why do I need a contract?

Unlike married people, who are protected by the articles of the Civil Code of Quebec and the Divorce Act, there is no law to protect common-law spouses in the event of break-up or death. Therefore, people living together without being married can find themselves in difficult legal situations that can be very costly in legal fees, emotions and stress!

A contract is a simple and affordable way of putting in writing the agreements you have for your couple and your family. A contract allows you to clearly state your priorities and needs and protects all parties involved.

The cohabitation contract represents the will of the signatories and will be respected by the courts in the event of a dispute. Many cases involving former spouses are before the courts with claims of all kinds because no cohabitation contract had been signed. However, there are very few cases where the parties had signed a cohabitation contract. Courts will respect contracts signed by the parties. A good example is Pousaz v. Bouchard. In this case, the dispute between the parties was limited because the couple had signed a cohabitation agreement.

In short, a contract is a way of avoiding disputes and injustices at the end of a couple’s life together, whether due to break-up or death.

And don’t forget that judgments are published and accessible to everyone online. Cases that do not involve children are published along with the names of the parties and all information pertinent to the case! With just one simple surname search, all the juicy details of your relationship and break-up are accessible!

Chantal and Daniel’s story.

Chantal and Daniel met in 1985 and lived together for almost twenty years. Chantal works in the education area, and Daniel, disabled following a car accident, works at a university.

The couple weren’t married and had no children. Daniel bought a house in his own name and Chantal contributed $10,000 towards the down payment. Chantal then paid Daniel $300 a month for her share of the house. This amount fell to $150 a month once the mortgage was paid off.

Chantal left Daniel in 2005 and claimed $85,000 from him as compensation for the payments she had made to the house and her contribution of time and services.

Chantal testified that Daniel had promised to put the house in both their names, but that he never took the necessary steps. Daniel testified that he had made Chantal a beneficiary of his university pension fund, but he changed that after the break-up.

Chantal also claimed compensation for the housework she did both inside and outside the house, since she did it almost exclusively because of Daniel’s physical condition, especially since Daniel received over $18,000 in compensation from the SAAQ for a household helper.

The Court concluded that Chantal contributed (to) 50% of the mortgage loan for a total of $29,088. The Court also concluded that Chantal was also entitled to compensation for the upkeep of the house. Daniel was ordered to pay Chantal $50,000 for her contribution during the time they lived together.

Tremblay v. Therrien, 750-17-001030-067, July 25, 2008, Judge Lise Matteau.

A cohabitation agreement would certainly have avoided this litigation, the stress of legal proceedings and the payment of legal fees and compensation, not to mention the fact that the whole world is now privy to Chantal and Daniel’s financial affairs.

What can be included in a contract?

Anything legal can be included in a cohabitation contract! You can stipulate how your finances are to be managed and expenses shared, provide for the use of the residence, pay for renovations, recognize contributions in kind or in services, include clauses in the event of death, express your principles regarding your children, etc. In short, it’s a document that’s tailored to your needs and priorities.

Marie-Ève and Benoit’s story.

Marie-Ève and Benoît lived together for nine years. At the end of their life together, Benoît had assets worth $82,000 and Marie-Ève, $750. The reason for this was that Marie-Ève paid the consumer expenses (food, daycare, child’s clothing) while Benoit bought the tangible assets (house, boats, trailer, RRSP, etc.). The family home was purchased in Benoît’s name only. Benoît benefited from the renovation work to which Marie-Ève contributed, as well as the household expenses she paid during the time they lived together.

The Court concluded that, had there been an equitable sharing of household expenses between the parties, Marie-Ève would have had a patrimony equivalent to 38% of the property accumulated by Benoît during their life together. Therefore, the Court ordered Benoît to pay Marie-Ève $31,000 in compensation.

Breton v. Asselin, 200-22-039903-067, June 27, 2008, Judge André Cloutier.

If this couple had signed a cohabitation contract, there would have been a clear and precise agreement regarding each person’s contributions and the way in which their property and expenses would be shared. If Benoit wanted to remain the sole owner of the house, this could have been provided for in the contract and the couple could have agreed on a way to compensate Marie-Ève (purchase of RRSPs or other assets, for instance).

Is it possible to amend a contract?

Yes, but unlike a will, which can be changed at any time without the knowledge of one’s partner, any change to a cohabitation contract requires the signature of both partners.

Pierrette and Michel’s story.

Pierrette and Michel lived together and signed a cohabitation contract in 1990 under which the parties renounced all recourse against each other in the event of a break-up.

A few years later, the couple separated at Michel’s request, and he signed another contract in which he agreed to pay Pierrette $200 twice a month for seven years. The new contract also stipulated that Pierrette must do her utmost to become self-sufficient once she retires.

Michel paid for two years and then stopped paying, claiming that the cohabitation contract signed in 1990 took precedence over the second contract and that he had not given his free consent. The court disagreed with Michel and held that the second contract was perfectly valid. However, given Pierrette’s financial situation, the Court reduced the obligation and ordered Michel to pay Pierrette $6,000 as a final payment.

Beaudoin v. Jacques, 400-05-002841-006, March 21, 2001, Judge Michel Richard

In short: a cohabitation contract is a contract that must be respected and can be amended by both parties.

Our firm can help you draw up such a contract. Contact us for more information!

What would be best in your case: sole custody to one parent, access rights one weekend out of two, extended access rights? Should these access rights be supervised? Is shared custody preferable? On what type of schedule? What about public holidays such as Christmas or Easter? And what about summer holidays? Would nesting be best for the children until the final judgement? Our professionals can help you untangle all these questions so that you can make the best possible decisions for your children at every stage of the separation process.

In certain exceptional circumstances, you may want to leave the family home with your children without first obtaining permission from the other parent. If this is the case, consult us quickly and before you leave.

Other situations could also lead you to leave the family home and leave the children with the other parent for a short or longer period. Again, this could have serious, even irreversible, consequences. If this is the case, consult us quickly before you leave.

You should also avoid allowing a custody situation that you feel is contrary to the best interests of your children to continue. When the court must make a decision that affects your children, their stability will be a factor. When it comes to custody, acting sooner rather than later is always best.

Making decisions about children

In Quebec, unlike anywhere else in the world, having physical custody of a child does not give you the right to make all the decisions concerning that child on your own. Barring exceptional situations in which one parent has been stripped of their rights by a court, both parents jointly exercise parental authority and must make important decisions about their children together, including the choice of school, health care, religious practices, food (e.g., vegetarianism), specific activities, etc.

You must therefore consult and obtain the permission of the other parent before taking any action. If you and the other parent disagree about any of these important decisions concerning your children, you can go to court to have the matter decided, whether or not you have physical custody of the child. If it’s impossible for you to wait for the court’s permission, consult us before taking any action.

Child support

The law stipulates that both parents must support their children. Since this legal obligation survives the break-up of the couple, parents must continue to contribute financially to meet their children’s needs after their separation. This is known as child support (not to be confused with spousal support).

Child support is determined primarily by the parents’ income, and then adjusted to take account of the amount of time each parent spends looking after their children. So, the higher your salary and the less time you spend with your children, the more child support you will have to pay. Similarly, if you and the other parent each generate a gross annual income of $65,000 and you share custody of your child equally (each 50% of the time), no child support will be payable. On the other hand, if in this same scenario you generate a gross annual income of $100,000, you will have to pay child support to the other parent, even if shared custody is in place.

The child support payable is determined based on scales established by law. We can help you make the necessary calculations.

Since support is based on the parents’ gross income, there are certain situations (business income, companies controlled by the payer, unremitted (business) profits, personal expenses paid out of the business, investment income, undeclared income, refusal by the payer to work, etc.) where it will be useful to ask the court to impute (i.e. add) income to the other parent, so that support can be set appropriately and fairly.

It is important to note that child maintenance payments were de-taxed several years ago, which means that the amounts paid in this respect are net of tax (i.e. non-deductible for the payer and non-taxable for the recipient).

Contrary to popular belief, child support does not stop when the child reaches the age of 18. In fact, child support will be payable for as long as your child is considered to be “financially dependent” on their parents. As a general rule, even if your child is over 18, if they are a full-time student, child support will continue to be payable. There are several special considerations when it comes to child support for children over the age of majority, and your specific circumstances will need to be taken into account. One of our professionals can advise you in these matters.

Special costs

In addition to basic child support, parents may have to pay other expenses, in proportion to their respective incomes. These are known as special expenses. These costs include:

• childcare costs (daycare, school daycare, etc.),
• private school,
• post-secondary education,
• orthodontics,
• medicines not covered by insurance,
• competitive sporting activities, such as gymnastics, horse riding, hockey, soccer, and so forth,
• etc.

As far as specific expenses are concerned, bear in mind that before you incur any such expenses, you must obtain the other parent’s authorization if you wish to be able to claim reimbursement from them. If the other parent refuses to incur such an expense, or even if they refuse to reimburse you for such an expense, you can go to court to have these issues settled. We can assist you in this process.

For example, Karen and Martin are the parents of Thomas, an 11-year-old boy who is starting grade 6 this year. Despite their separation 2 years ago, Karen and Martin have always managed to agree on decisions concerning their son. Now the time has come for them to enrol Thomas in high school. A problem arose because they didn’t agree on where to enrol him. Karen wanted to enrol Thomas in private school. She believed the close supervision at this private school would help Thomas with his behavioural problems, and she also felt that the sports concentration offered would be beneficial for him. Karen wanted to give Thomas the best and said that the parents’ combined financial situation was more than enough to afford him this luxury. Martin, on the other hand, strongly disagreed. First, since he generated the most income, he knew that he alone would have to pay a large part of the costs of this private school. What’s more, he didn’t think Thomas had any behavioural problems that required him to attend private school and maintained that the local public school – the same one Karen and Martin attended – offered just as many services. In any event, Martin believed that private school wasn’t “real life” and wanted to offer his son a public education, which was closer to his parental values. In short, Karen and Martin were at an impasse. In such a situation, Karen could go to court to ask to be allowed to enrol Thomas in private school and force Martin to pay his share of the costs. Of course, Martin would defend himself and explain his position. After hearing the evidence, the court would make the decision it considered best for Thomas.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Where children are concerned, custody, parental authority, child support and special expenses rules are the same whether you are married or not.