Cohabitational Relationships

• Author: Julien D. Payne/Marilyn A. Payne
• Pages: 41-63



 

Cohabitational Relationships

A. INTRODUCTION

Cohabitational relation ships involve two people who share their lives togeth-

er but are not married to each other. Cohabitational re lationships may in-

volve members of the opposite sex or members of the same sex . Unmarried

heterosexual cohabit ation is sometimes referred to as a common-law re-

lationship. Unmarried cohabitants go under a variet y of names, includi ng

common-law sp ouse, co-vivant, signif‌icant other, mate, life partner, cohab -

itee, and cohabitant.

ere are various reasons why some members of t he opposite sex e nter

into unmarried cohabitational relationships instead of marriage. ey in-

clude the following :

) ere may be a legal impediment to marriage — as, for example, where

one of the parties has b een previously married but is not divorced.

) ere may be some religious obstac le to marriage.

) Marriage m ay be perceived by one or both of the parties as a patr iarchal

straitjacket th at i nvolves t raditional homemaking and breadwinn ing

roles that fail to recog nize equality between t he sexes.

 For excellent sou rces dealing wit h the legal implic ations of unmarr ied cohabitation

in Canada , see Alberta L aw Reform Institut e, Towards Reform of the Law Relatin g to

Cohabitation Out side Marriage, Rep ort No.  (Edmonton: e Ins titute, ); Ontario

Law Reform Com mission, Report o n e Rights and Respons ibilities of Cohabitants u nder

the Family Law Act, ( Toronto: e Commission, ); Wi nifred H. Holla nd & Barbro

E. Stalbec ker-Pountney, Cohabitat ion: e Law in Canada, looselea f (Toronto: Carswell,

–). As to the poss ibility of exte nding legal rig hts and obligations to a bro ader range

of personal re lationships, see L aw Commission of Cana da, Discussion Pap er, “Recogniz-

ing and Suppor ting Close Persona l Relationships B etween Adults,” onl ine: www.lcc.gc.ca .

   

) Marriage imposes cert ain legal rights and obligations that one or both

parties might wish to avoid. ey may h ave been involved in a previ-

ous marri age breakdown that carries emotiona l and economic scars and

may assume t hat history cannot repeat itself if they avoid the marriage

“trap.” Any such assumption is misplaced, however, because the emo-

tional t rauma of the brea kdown of a rel ationship is not condit ioned on

whether the pa rties are marr ied. Furthermore, un married cohabitation

may carry signif‌icant economic consequences t hat are legally enforce-

able on the breakdown of the re lationship.

) Changing social mores and t he weakening of relig ious inf‌luences have

largely removed the stigma t hat formerly attached to unmarried co-

habitants of the opposite sex .

) Many young couples enter into u nmarried cohabitat ion as a “trial ma r-

riage” that can b e informally terminated or legally form alized at some

time in the future. Conversion to marital stat us is often triggered by the

anticipated birth of a c hild.

) Unmarried cohabitation may enable one or both of the parties to pre-

serve their ent itlement to certain benef‌its, such as sup port payments or

pension payments, which wou ld be lost in the event of remarriage.

) Many couples who begin sle eping over at each ot her’s houses slip into a

cohabitational relationship as a matter of convenience r ather than as a

consequence of c arefully weighi ng the pros and cons of marita l and un-

married coha bitation.

On  September , Statist ics Canada released data f rom the 

Census on the subject of mar ital status, common-law unions, and famil ies.

Included in that repor t is the following:

e cen sus enumerated ,, mar ried-couple f amilies, an increase of

only . from . In contrast, the number of common -law-couple fam-

ilies surged . to ,,, while the number of lone-pare nt families

increased . to , ,.

Consequently, ma rried-couple fam ilies accounted for . of all cen-

sus fami lies in , down from . f‌ive years earlie r. e proportion of

common-law-couple families rose from . to ., w hile the share of

lone-parent fam ilies increased slig htly from . to ..

Two decades ago, common-law-couple fami lies accounted for only .

of all censu s families. Mar ried-couple famil ies represented ., and

lone-parent fam ilies, ..

In Quebe c, where the prevalence of common-law-couple families has

been one of the def‌ini ng family patterns for yea rs, the number of common-

law-couple familie s increased . between  and  to ,. ey