Do Common-Law Partners Have Property Rights in Ontario?

Do common-law property rights exist in Ontario? It is one of the most common questions we hear, and it is usually followed by a dangerous myth: "We've lived together for eight years. When we split, will I get half the house?"

The person asking is usually calm, because it’s possible they might believe the answer is an obvious yes. More often than not, it isn't.  

To overcome this assumption, it’s important to explain what common-law partners in Ontario are actually entitled to on separation, and why the answer has nothing to do with the three-year rule people keep hearing about. We can look to a recent 2025 Court of Appeal decision, Chapman v. Ing, to examine what a successful claim might look like.

The Quick Answer

Common-law partners in Ontario have no automatic statutory right to divide property on separation. The Family Law Act's equalization regime applies only to married spouses. However, a common-law partner can still obtain a share of property, including full ownership of it, through an equitable claim such as unjust enrichment.

Navigating a common law separation in Ontario is different from a married divorce. To understand how the courts handle the division of property for unmarried couples, we need to look at both the legislation and a recent 2025 decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario that proves exactly why title and corporate shares don't always dictate who owns what, as Chapman v. Ing, 2025 ONCA 292 confirms.

The Law Explained: Why the "Three-Year Myth" Exists

The confusion around common law property rights in Ontario comes from how the Family Law Act (FLA) defines a "spouse."

Under Section 29 of the FLA, unmarried partners are considered spouses if they have cohabited continuously for three years, or if they have a child together and a relationship of some permanence. But this expanded definition applies only to spousal support.

When it comes to property, Section 1 of the FLA defines a spouse strictly as two people who are legally married. Therefore, the automatic equalization of net family property under Section 5 applies only to married couples. This also means the special protections for the matrimonial home apply only to married spouses, a distinction we cover in our post on who stays in the house during separation.

Because unmarried couples cannot rely on the Family Law Act for property division, they must rely on the law of equity. The Supreme Court of Canada’s framework in Kerr v. Baranow (2011 SCC 10) dictates that an unmarried partner can seek a share of assets through a claim of unjust enrichment.

To prove unjust enrichment, a partner must show three things:

1. They provided an enrichment (a financial or non-financial contribution).

2. The other partner suffered a corresponding deprivation.

3. There is no "juristic reason" (like a contract or specific law) for the enriched partner to keep the benefit.

If successful, the court can award a monetary payment or, in some cases, a "constructive trust,” granting actual ownership rights in a specific property.

The Case: Chapman v. Ing, 2025 ONCA 292

A recent decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Chapman v. Ing, can help illustrate how common law property rights in relation to unjust enrichment works when business and romantic relationships collide.

What Happened

Chapman and Ing were in an "on-again, off-again" conjugal relationship that eventually evolved into a business arrangement. During their time together, they acquired and managed a 10-unit rental property on Wyandotte Street. To hold the property, they created a corporation in which both were shareholders.

Who Paid For It

However, Ing funded the acquisition. She refinanced her own house, transferred roughly $111,000 into the corporation, and personally paid about $27,000 in second-mortgage interest. Ing also made non-monetary contributions by renovating and operating the property. Chapman, meanwhile, contributed very little to the property’s acquisition, improvement, or ongoing value.

What Brought It to Court

When the relationship broke down, the parties went to court over who actually owned the Wyandotte property. Because they were never married, the Family Law Act's equalization regime did not apply. Ing pursued her claim entirely through equity.

Chapman argued that because they were both shareholders in the corporation that owned the building, he was entitled to an equal share under Section 22(3)(b) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA). He argued this corporate statute was a "juristic reason" that defeated Ing's unjust enrichment claim.

The Court's Decision

The trial judge disagreed with Chapman and ruled in Ing's favour. The court granted Ing a vesting order, awarding her 100% ownership of the property, subject to paying Chapman $39,000, which represented half of the original purchase price minus the outstanding mortgage. Chapman appealed the decision. In April 2025, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed his appeal, upholding the trial judge's order.

The Court's Reasoning

The Court of Appeal applied the three-part test from Moore v. Sweet and Kerr v. Baranow, agreeing that Chapman was unjustly enriched by Ing's financial and physical labour.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court clarified several critical rules for unmarried couples:

• A "joint family venture" is not strictly required: Notably, the trial judge had found that the couple did not meet the test for a joint family venture. Chapman v. Ing serves as a highly useful teaching point: a claim for unjust enrichment can still succeed even if a joint family venture fails.

• Corporate statutes do not automatically block equity: The Court soundly rejected Chapman's corporate law argument. Relying on Moore v. Sweet, the Court emphasized that a statute must clearly and specifically exclude equitable claims before it can act as a "juristic reason" to deny one.

• Shareholder rights do not erase family law claims: Section 22(3)(b) of the OBCA governs shareholders' rights within a corporation, but it does not displace equitable or family law claims between individuals.

• Courts require flexibility for family businesses: Stressing the flexibility courts need when closely held corporations are entangled in personal relationships, the Court upheld Ing's proprietary remedy (the vesting order) rather than limiting her to a simple monetary award.

The takeaway? Whether it is a property title or a share certificate, what your name is on is not the end of the analysis for a common-law partner in Ontario.

What You Should Do If You Are Separating From a Common-Law Partner

1. Do Not Assume The Three-Year Rule Gives Common Law Property Rights: The Three-Year-Rule governs support. Nothing more.

2. Gather Your Financial Contributions: Transfers, refinancing documents, mortgage interest payments, deposits. In Chapman v. Ing, specific dollar figures carried the claim.

3. Document Non-Financial Contributions: Renovation work, property management, unpaid labour. These counted for Ing.

4. Understand That A Corporation May Not Protect You: Holding property through a company did not shield Chapman from an equitable claim.

5. Check Your Timeline: A constructive trust claim against land carries a 10-year limitation period.

6. Get Advice Before You Sign Anything. A separation agreement signed without understanding your equitable claim can waive it.

Note also a reverse scenario: if you are the partner on title who funded everything, you are not automatically safe either. Equity looks past the name on the deed in both directions.

The Cohabitation Agreement Point

Many cases like Chapman v. Ing can show that a written agreement would have shortened or prevented. A cohabitation agreement lets partners set out, in advance, who owns what, how contributions will be treated, and what happens on separation. It is similar to a separation agreement, signed at a calmer moment.

It is also worth understanding what common-law partners do not have. Married spouses have specific statutory rights to remain in the matrimonial home regardless of title; we cover that in our post on who stays in the house during separation. Those rights do not always extend to common-law partners.

Final Words by Michael Iyore Law

We tell clients two things about common law property rights in Ontario, and they sound contradictory until you see a case like this one.

First: you have no automatic right to anything. The equalization regime is not available to you, and no amount of time living together changes that.

Second: that is not the end of the analysis. Chapman v. Ing ended with one partner receiving full ownership of a 10-unit rental property — not because a statute gave it to her, but because she could prove what she put in and the court found no legal justification for the other party keeping the benefit of it.

The distance between those two positions is evidence. Whether you are the partner claiming a share or the partner defending title, the outcome turns on documentation and on how the claim is framed at the outset.

If you are separating from a common-law partner in Ontario, or you want a cohabitation agreement drafted before that question ever arises, we can help. You can review our family law services, read through our frequently asked questions, or schedule a free consultation.

Read the full decision: Chapman v. Ing, 2025 ONCA 292

Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and does not replace personalized legal advice. For help with your specific situation, speak to a licensed family law lawyer. https://www.michaeliyorelaw.ca/contact-us