that wiki article is inaccurate, in that it uses the term “common law marriage” to mean both a true common law marriage, where cohabitation and holding oneself out as married can establish a marriage status, and informal relationships of cohabitation that do not create a married status.
For example, the intro defines common law marriage as:
The article then notes that the term is also used in some countries, such as Canada, to refer to informal relationships that do not create a legal married status:
However, in the later portion of the article, it does not keep that distinction in mind, which is the same point I made earlier. As well, it’s factually inaccurate when it states:
If that is intended to suggest that some provinces recognize common law marriages that carry the legal status of marriage, to the best of my knowledge it’s not correct - no provinces recognize true common law marriage.
On the other hand, if it’s a reference to the legal recognition of some rights for couples who cohabit without getting married, that’s not governed by the Marriage Acts at all, but by the Family Law Acts, as noted in the next section of the article, citing the Ontario Family Law Act.
Really, that article needs a thorough clean-up, because it’s talking about two different legal concepts without distinguishing between them, even though there are significant differences.
It appears to me that the article suffers from serious translation problems, as well.
In many languages, “civil marriage” is the one which carries a civil-law contract as opposed to a sacrament/religious contract. It’s registered in a civil registry, as opposed to being registered in church registries or personal ones.
For example, translating “matrimonio civil” as “civil union” and assuming that it is different from “marriage” (rather than a type thereof) is just plain mistaken.