One of the most common — and most surprising — gaps for unmarried couples in Ontario involves property. Married spouses have a statutory right to equalisation of net family property when the marriage ends. Common-law partners do not. No matter how long they lived together, Ontario's equalisation regime does not automatically apply to them. When a common-law relationship ends, a partner who wants a share of property held in the other's name usually has to build a claim on a different legal foundation: unjust enrichment.
What unjust enrichment means here
Unjust enrichment asks three questions: was one partner enriched, was the other correspondingly deprived, and is there no legal reason (a "juristic reason") for that enrichment to be kept? If a partner contributed money, labour, or years of unpaid work — running a household, supporting a business, raising children — that allowed the other to accumulate wealth, the law may treat it as unjust for that wealth to stay entirely with one of them.
Kerr v. Baranow (2011)
Kerr v. Baranow is the leading Supreme Court decision on unjust enrichment between domestic partners. It clarified the analysis and, importantly, recognised the concept of the "joint family venture." Where two people effectively pooled their efforts and resources toward common goals, and their lives and finances were deeply intertwined, a contributing partner may be entitled to a share of the accumulated wealth proportionate to their contribution — rather than being limited to a narrow, fee-for-services payment for specific tasks performed.
The Court identified factors that point toward a joint family venture, including mutual effort, economic integration, the actual intentions of the parties, and the priority the couple placed on the family. Where those features are present, a monetary award reflecting a share of the family's accumulated wealth may be appropriate.
Why the distinction matters
Before Kerr, a partner's claim was often confined to the value of the specific services they provided, which could badly understate a lifetime of shared effort. The joint-family-venture approach lets courts recognise the reality of many long relationships — that the couple built something together — and to divide the result more fairly.
Practical points for common-law partners
- Do not assume you have the same property rights as a married spouse — in Ontario, you generally do not.
- Keep in mind that contributions of unpaid work and support can count, not only direct financial contributions.
- A cohabitation agreement can set expectations in advance and reduce uncertainty if the relationship ends.
For education only. Common-law property claims are complex, evidence-heavy, and highly fact-specific.
This article is general information for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. For advice on your situation, book a consultation.