Length alone does not determine spousal status

Major v. Lacey, 2026 BCSC 1362, concerned a relationship that lasted about 18 years. The parties were exclusive, spent significant time together, shared parts of their lives, and took some steps that could point toward a committed partnership. They nevertheless maintained separate homes in Montreal and Vancouver and never lived together in a shared residence.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia concluded that they were not spouses under the Family Law Act. The decision shows why the duration or seriousness of a relationship does not, by itself, answer whether two people lived in a marriage-like relationship.

The test is contextual and holistic

British Columbia courts do not use a single checklist to decide whether a relationship was marriage-like. They look at the relationship as a whole. Potentially relevant considerations include:

  • whether the parties shared a home and how they organized their households;
  • the continuity and exclusivity of the relationship;
  • financial arrangements, support, property, and economic interdependence;
  • how the parties presented their relationship to family, friends, employers, and institutions;
  • emotional commitment, companionship, and mutual support;
  • plans for the future and estate planning; and
  • whether the parties treated their lives as joined in a way associated with spouses.

No factor is automatically decisive. Modern relationships take many forms, and a marriage-like relationship does not require the parties to reproduce a traditional marriage. At the same time, the statutory cohabitation requirement still has to be met.

Evidence pointing in both directions

The record in Major included evidence of a long and exclusive relationship, shared travel and companionship, some financial integration, and estate-planning choices. One party had also signed an Air Canada affidavit identifying a common-law relationship.

Other evidence pointed away from spousal status. The parties retained separate residences in different cities and generally spent only part of each year together. They did not establish a shared household. The Court also considered what happened when earlier practical barriers to living together were no longer present: the parties still did not combine their homes.

The Court assessed the evidence in context rather than treating the affidavit, estate documents, or length of the relationship as conclusive. It found that the parties had not lived together in a marriage-like relationship and dismissed the claim based on spousal status.

Why documents and conduct both matter

Forms describing a person as a spouse or common-law partner can be relevant, but their purpose and surrounding circumstances matter. The same is true of wills, beneficiary designations, joint accounts, and shared expenses. A court will compare documentary evidence with how the parties actually lived.

People may use different descriptions for different purposes without understanding that family-law consequences can depend on a separate statutory test. Conversely, keeping separate accounts or residences does not necessarily prevent a finding of a marriage-like relationship if the complete evidence establishes cohabitation and a spousal partnership.

Practical implications

Spousal status can affect property division, support, estate rights, and limitation periods. A person should not assume that a long-term romantic relationship automatically creates or avoids those consequences.

Useful evidence may include leases and property records, addresses used on official documents, financial records, correspondence, travel patterns, insurance and benefit forms, estate documents, evidence from friends or relatives, and communications about future plans. The relevance of each item depends on the dispute.

Major v. Lacey is not a general rule that partners with two residences can never be spouses. It is an example of the holistic analysis applied to a specific evidentiary record.

Source and important note

This article provides general legal information, not legal advice. Whether a relationship is marriage-like is a fact-specific legal question. Anyone whose rights may depend on spousal status should obtain advice about their own circumstances and any applicable deadline.