It’s rare for judges to have to wrestle with whether a couple are common law spouses.  It’s usually obvious.  In the recent case of Bellerose v. Reda: https://canlii.ca/t/jx24h , Mr. Justice Jan Brongers spent 97 paragraphs analyzing whether this relationship was “marriage-like”.  It’s a clear summary of the law, so worth reading.

Justice Brongers looked at the 5 traditional marks of a “marriage-like” relationship.

1.     Did they live together? – No.  This was not obvious, as the man (Reda) said they had lived together for only about 6 months in 2018.  The woman (Bellerose) said they had lived together 2015-2019, most of the time switching back and forth between 2 houses.  Justice Brongers agreed with Mr. Reda.

2.     Were they in an exclusive sexual relationship?  Yes.  From 2012 to 2020 they were exclusive with each other. 

3.     Did they provide services to each other?  No.  Ms. Bellerose did help Mr. Reda in his business.  But Justice Brongers decided it was the sort of help that any good friend would do for the other.  He decided that things like cooking and cleaning were what “marriage-like” required.

4.     Did they publicly represent that they were a couple?  No.  Again, this was not an obvious decision.  They travelled together, spent time with each other’s families (Ms. Bellerose even cut the nails of Mr. Reda’s mother).  But Ms. Bellerose sometimes complained to Mr. Reda’s family that he did not want to “commit to a deeper relationship”.  It’s clear this one was a close call – but Ms. Bellerose had the duty to prove her case.  Looks like she just missed it.

5.     Financial interdependence.  No.  Ms. Bellerose said she had a secondary credit card from Ms. Reda.  He said it was to help her with her spa business.  She said they shared household expenses.  He showed she had signed a tenancy contract.  Justice Brongers put a lot of weight on that: wives don’t sign tenancy agreements with husbands.

Looking at the facts in this case, it’s clear that some judges would have decided at least #1, #3 (weird to suggest in 2023 that only cooking and cleaning are “wifely”), and maybe #4 differently.  But that darn landlord / tenant agreement.  That was the killer.

In deciding whether a couple is in a “marriage-like” relationship, judges have been telling us for almost 100 years that it’s not just one thing that makes you “married”.  It’s the total of all the things, looked at all together.  See here for what an old-fashioned marriage looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8t5cOjlEPU  

It’s not irrelevant that Ms. Bellerose had no lawyer.  Mr. Reda had Angela Atwood-Brewka, who has been a lawyer since 1996.   Not having a lawyer doesn’t always mean that the unrepresented person is wrong – but it’s a clue. 

If Ms. Bellerose had won, she would have been entitled to spousal support and a split of “family” property.  By losing, she’ll end up paying maybe $5,000 court costs to Mr. Reda.  I estimate his actual legal expense will run about $50,000 to $80,000.  But he’ll never pay spousal support, and he’ll keep his property.  Likely a win for him.

At Clear Legal we have been helping clients figure out when a relationship becomes a marriage since 1990.