# Common law marraige requirements **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 4, 2006, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338 "2006-05-04T01:58:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Pyroette](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/90db22/32.png) [@Pyroette](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyroette)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/1 "2006-05-04T01:58:01Z")
I’m wondering if anyone here has a better understanding of Canadain law than I do, which really shouldn’t be that difficult. I have heard wildly varying tales of what the time frame is for Canadian co-habitating couples to be considered eligable for common-law marraige, from 3 months to a year. Of course, a year seems like a short time to me, since growing up in the States, I was told it was 7 years, or so I thought. Anyone else have any idea? ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/2 "2006-05-04T02:12:12Z")
I think if would depend on what you needed the marriage to be eligible _for_. There are less strict requirements for you cohabitation to be eligible for Domestic Violence prosecution than say Insurance Benefits. And probably an entirely different requirement for probate issues or visitation at hospitals, etc. Maybe Canada is different, but you mentioned the US too. And there isn’t anything about common law marriage or cohabitation that is universal across the board. For some things you’ll be treated as married, but for probably the majority of things, it’s a worthless classification. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/3 "2006-05-04T04:57:05Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > Maybe Canada is different, but you mentioned the US too. And there isn’t anything about common law marriage or cohabitation that is universal across the board. For some things you’ll be treated as married, but for probably the majority of things, it’s a worthless classification. No, being married under the common law in those US states which recognize it is every bit as valid as marriages contracted under the marriage statutes. In those [states which recognize CL marriage](http://www.unmarried.org/common.html), the basic requirements for recognition are consent, cohabitation for a certain length of time (usually seven years) and representing themselves to the community as married (and accepted as such). Couples married under the common law who move or travel to a non-CL state must, under the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, be recognized as married by the state (unless the marriage is against the public policy of the state). CL marriages and statutory marriages are legally indistinguishable in the US. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/4 "2006-05-04T05:04:55Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > cohabitation for a certain length of time (usually seven years) Gah. My source for the “seven years” comment was notes from a Family Law class I took a few years ago. In reviewing my own link I see that there is no defined length of time in any state. I blame my professor. ---
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/5 "2006-05-04T05:09:30Z")
A common law marriage in Canada is recognized as two people, either different sexes or the same sex who have lived together, as a couple, for a minimum of one year. That’s to receive benefits from the govt. At my job, 6 months cohabitation is the requirement. Generally speaking tho, one year is what is required by all government agencies. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/6 "2006-05-04T17:33:01Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > No, being married under the common law in those US states which recognize it is every bit as valid as marriages contracted under the marriage statutes. In those [states which recognize CL marriage](http://www.unmarried.org/common.html), the basic requirements for recognition are consent, cohabitation for a certain length of time (usually seven years) and representing themselves to the community as married (and accepted as such). Couples married under the common law who move or travel to a non-CL state must, under the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, be recognized as married by the state (unless the marriage is against the public policy of the state). CL marriages and statutory marriages are legally indistinguishable in the US. Neat. Thanks. I didn’t realize _any_ state did that. Hmmmm. Why not just go to the court house and file a stupid form though? It’s only one page and takes like 15 minutes tops. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/7 "2006-05-04T17:50:02Z")
Well, you save the filing fee… ---
**Author:** ![GingerOfTheNorth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/cdc98d/32.png) [@GingerOfTheNorth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GingerOfTheNorth)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/8 "2006-05-04T20:32:19Z")
> [@alice\_in\_wonderland](#): > > A common law marriage in Canada is recognized as two people, either different sexes or the same sex who have lived together, as a couple, for a minimum of one year. > > That’s to receive benefits from the govt. At my job, 6 months cohabitation is the requirement. > > Generally speaking tho, one year is what is required by all government agencies. The term required is less than one year if you have children together. ---
**Author:** ![elfbabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b782af/32.png) [@elfbabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfbabe)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/9 "2006-05-04T21:44:28Z")
Ooh, another US-born Ottawa resident! Whee! Hello! It varies a LOT depending on what it’s for. For immigration purposes, my boyfriend and I will be in a common-law relationship after one year of cohabitation. For OSAP (student loans), it’s three years or a kid together. It’s best to look it up for each individual thing you think it might affect - they generally seem to define it for you. ---
**Author:** ![elfbabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b782af/32.png) [@elfbabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfbabe)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/10 "2006-05-04T21:55:02Z")
> [@elfbabe](#): > > US-born Whoops, I just did a search on your posts and found out that you were actually born in Canada. Sorry! I also found out that you seem to be pretty cool. We should hang out sometime if it isn’t too creepy. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2006, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/11 "2006-05-05T06:29:20Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > Neat. Thanks. I didn’t realize _any_ state did that. Hmmmm. > Why not just go to the court house and file a stupid form though? It’s only one page and takes like 15 minutes tops. Comon-law marriage evolved, like the rest of the common law, in the agricultural society of pre-industrial England. It might be years for a circuit-riding JP to hit your little hamlet, so there had to be a way for a marriage to be formally valid without prior government sanction. (Esp. since at that time the recognized that to have sex outside of wedlock meant you were going to hell.) Nowadays, most states have abolished it, and that continues to be the trend. But it’s still useful in rural areas where it takes the better part of a workday, or worse, to get to city hall and file your paperwork. It’s similarly useful for working people in urban environments who cannot afford to lose the day’s pay to sit in City Hall for a few hours. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/919ad9/32.png) [@rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rabbit)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2006, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/12 "2006-05-05T13:33:16Z")
I’ve been looking for info on this too, I’m waiting to get something a bit more official (as per where to get information) but here’s what I’ve found so far. [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#Canada) has a nice little entry on common law marriage, and I looked up the relevant parts of the Ontario Family Law act myself so that part is accurate for sure. Relevant bits from article: "Canadian federal law does not have “common law marriage”, but various federal laws include “common law status,” which automatically takes effect once two people (of any gender) have lived together in a romantic relationship for one full year. " "In Ontario, a common law province, the Ontario Family Law Act specifically recognizes common law spouses in sec. 29 dealing with spousal support issues; the requirements are living together for three years or having a child in common and having ‘cohabitated in a relationship of some permanence.’ " I’ll post more once I’ve heard back from lawyer friend. ---
**Author:** ![Pyroette](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/90db22/32.png) [@Pyroette](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyroette)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2006, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/13 "2006-05-05T13:33:31Z")
> [@elfbabe](#): > > Whoops, I just did a search on your posts and found out that you were actually born in Canada. Sorry! > > I also found out that you seem to be pretty cool. We should hang out sometime if it isn’t too creepy. Meh, I feel US born, spent so much of my childhood there. And I’m half American, so it’s all good. And thank you, I’ve never really considered myself cool. Hanging out would not be creepy, just send me an e-mail (should be in my profile) ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2006, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/14 "2006-05-05T16:15:57Z")
Ahhh, doesn’t marriage in Canada fall under Provincial legislation? ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/15 "2006-05-05T20:04:00Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Ahhh, doesn’t marriage in Canada fall under Provincial legislation? As far as I know, the solemnation of marriage is a provincial responsibility while the determination of who is eligible to marry is a federal responsibility. At least, that’s what we were hearing during the debates about same-sex marriage. On the other hand, civil status is entirely a provincial responsibility. So there might be differences between provinces about the required time to consider that two people are _de facto_ married. Also note that some provinces have enacted a system of civil unions. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2006, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/16 "2006-05-05T20:20:42Z")
So is there no paperwork or record for common law marriages? What does it take, then, for an official divorce? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2006, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/17 "2006-05-05T20:52:43Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > So is there no paperwork or record for common law marriages? What does it take, then, for an official divorce? Same thing as for any other divorce. Common law marriage is legally indistinguishable from statutory marriage in the US. Dissolution of a common law marriage must follow the same legal process as for a statutory one. ---
**Author:** ![GingerOfTheNorth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/cdc98d/32.png) [@GingerOfTheNorth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GingerOfTheNorth)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2006, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/18 "2006-05-06T02:40:22Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > So is there no paperwork or record for common law marriages? What does it take, then, for an official divorce? IME, no official divorce is necessary if you have had no official, on-paper marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2006, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/19 "2006-05-06T07:28:43Z")
**CUSTOMARY MARRIAGE / MARRIAGE VALID UNDER THE COMMON LAW IN CANADA** In Canada, customary marriage / marriage valid under the Common Law does exist, but only in very limited circumstances. _Blanchett v. Hansell_, [1944] M.J. No. 1 (Man…Ct.K.B.); _Keddie v. Currie_, [1991] B.C.J. No. 2871 (BCCA). Suffice it to say, if a couple of typical Canadians shack up and say they are married, that does not constitute a marriage. A lot depends on the customs of the culture, and for the most part, cultures in Canada do not have customary / common law marriage. Inuit customary marriage exists. _Re Noah Estate_ (1961), 32 D.L.R. (2d) 185 (also reported: 36 W.W.R. 577) Northwest Territories Territorial Court, Sissons J., 24 November 1961, [http://library.usask.ca/native/cnlc/vol06/120.html](http://library.usask.ca/native/cnlc/vol06/120.html) Have a read through the following excerpt from _Noah_, for it is illustrative of the cultural background, and of how, for better or worse, the European culture and laws are overlaid on the pre-existing aboriginal culture: > [@](#): > > It was not necessary to go to Padloping Island or Cape Dyer. The judicial party was held up for 3 days at Broughton Island by storms over the mountains. The time was not wasted. Indeed the enforced stay at Broughton Island proved helpful. Several canoes arrived from Padloping Island with relatives and friends of Noah and Igah. Peterloosie, the father of Igah, returned from a seal hunt. The Court and counsel visited and talked with these people and met most of the people of the settlement and secured a better understanding and appreciation of the community and of Eskimo life and customs on Broughton Island, and of the present matter and the people involved. This was in accord with the general practice of the bar of the Northwest Territories. They learn first-hand. > . . . > > The issue to be determined is whether Igah E6-411 is the “widow” and Jeannie E6-890 is the “issue” of Noah E6-465, so as to entitle them to share in his estate in accordance with the Intestate Succession Ordinance. > Specifically, the question is whether a marriage in accord- ance with Eskimo custom stands on the same legal footing as a marriage which has been duly solemnized under the Marriage Ordinance. > > As I understand Northern Affairs’ Supplementary Ar- gument, supra, it is submitted that a marriage in accordance with Eskimo custom is not a marriage, it is simply “the Eskimo custom of concubinage”. > > I feel that I must deal with the Argument as I consfder it casts unwarranted aspersions on Igah and Noah and on Eskimos. > > The Supplementary Argument is fanciful and scandalous, both as regards to the Eskimos and as regards Noah and Igah. > > A marriage in accordance with Eskimo custom is not “the Eskimo custom of concubinage”. > > Igah was not a concubine. Noah was not a paramour. And he was not a philanderer. > . . . > > I find that the marriage of Noah and Igah was a marriage in accordance with Eskimo custom and was a legal marriage under the laws of the Northwest Territories. Indian customary marriage exists: _Manychief v. Poffenroth_, [1994] A.J. No. 907 (ABQB) Aboriginal customary adoption exists: _Casimel v. ICBC_ [1993] B.C.J. No. 1834 (BCCA) For most folks who live together but who never went through a formal marriage, they are spouses, but they are not married. **MARRIED AND NON-MARRIED SPOUSAL ENTITLEMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS** When people live together in a conjugal relationship of some permanence, they gain certain entitlements and obligations. If they marry , they gain even further entitlements and obligations. These entitlements and obligations vary according to the provincial or territorial jurisdiction. With respect to a couple splitting up, five issues frequently arise: custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property. Ontario is fairly typical. It’s _Family Law Act_ applies to couples who separate, be the married or non-married. Under Ontario’s _Family Law Act_, the entitlements and obligations concerning custody, access, child support, and spousal support would be the substantially the same regardless of whether or not the couple had been married, however, there would be a little less wiggle room to get out of paying child support if the parties were married, and the spousal support obligation would kick in upon marriage, but otherwise would not kick in until three years of cohabitation. Only married persons would have an entitlement to an equalization of net family property. This is where a lot of non-married people have a nasty surprise when they split from their spouses – they can make a trust claim, but that is a poor second to an automatic equalization had they been married. _Family Law Act_, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-3, as am., [http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90f03\_e.htm](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90f03_e.htm) Under the Canadian _Divorce Act_, which applies only to married couples who separate, the provisions for custody, access, child support and spousal support are somewhat similar to those under the Ontario _Family Law Act_. The _Divorce Act_ does not deal with property. _Divorce Act_, R.S. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), as am., [http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/D-3.4/index.html](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/D-3.4/index.html) There is no common law right in Canada for a dependant to sue for harm done to the person supporting them (e.g. for a dependant spouse to sue the person who ran over her partner). To rectify this, the provincial and territorial jurisdictions have put laws in place that permit this. In Ontario, this right is the same whether the parties were married or not. _Family Law Act_, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-3, as am., [http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90f03\_e.htm](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90f03_e.htm) Dependant’s relief under Ontario’s _Succession Law Reform Act_ can be sought from an estate without regard to whether or not the parties were married. _Succession Law Reform Act_, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-26, as am., [http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90s26\_e.htm](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90s26_e.htm) A final nasty surprise for unmarried spouses is that they are not able to claim a share of an estate, either under Ontario’s _Succession Law Reform Act_ or its . _Family Law Act_. This brings us full circle back to why matters such as _Noah_ and customary marriage / marriage valid under the Common Law are so important. _Succession Law Reform Act_, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-26, as am., [http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90s26\_e.htm](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90s26_e.htm) ; [http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90s26\_e.htm](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90s26_e.htm) There are a host of other federal, provincial and territorial laws that affect couples, and many of them differentiate between married and non-married couples (and differ as to how long a couple must cohabit before being deemed to be spouses). This differentiation was key to the need for Canada to move forward to permit same sex marriage, so that all couples could have equal rights. _Marriage for Civil Purposes Act_ 2005, c. 33, as am., [http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-31.5/270942.html](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-31.5/270942.html) ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2006, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-law-marraige-requirements/355338/20 "2006-05-06T16:57:12Z")
**COMMON-LAW PARTNER / UNMARRIED SPOUSE COHABITATION TIME REQURIEMENTS** Federal legislation is moving toward calling married couples “spouses” and calling non-married couples “common-law partners.” Note that if a person were to be married by way of a customary marriage valid under the Common Law, that person would be a spouse, and not a common-law partner. For the most part, 1 year of cohabitation is the trigger for a couple to be common-law partners / unmarried spouses under federal legislation. Ontario provincial legislation usually uses the term “spouse”, which always includes married partners, but may or may not include non-married partners, depending on the particular section of the Act in question. For the most part, part, under Ontario provincial legislation, 3 years of cohabitation is the trigger for a couple to be common-law partners / unmarried spouses, with notable exceptions being Workers Compensation (1 year), and the spouse in the house rule (3 months) that limits government assistance payments. Following is a list of the time requirements for a couple to be considered common-law partners / unmarried spouses under the more frequently used Canadian federal acts Ontario provincial acts: _Canada Pension Plan_, R.S., 1985, c. C-8, as am.: 1 Year. [http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-8/index.html](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-8/index.html) _Child and Family Services Act_, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, as am.: living in a conjugal relationship (no time requirement). [http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90c11\_e.htm](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90c11_e.htm) _Children’s Law Reform Act_, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, as am.: if a parent – deemed to be a parent if a child is born during a couple’s relationship of some permanence, or within 300 days following separation. [http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90c12\_e.htm](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90c12_e.htm) _Criminal Code_, R.S., 1985, c. C-46, as am.: 1 year. [http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/index.html](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/index.html) _Divorce Act_, R.S., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), as am.: only applicable to married spouses, which includes couples married through a customary marriage valid under the Common Law (but not common-law partners). If a couple were married through a customary marriage valid under the common-law, and if that custom also included provisions for divorce, then a divorce could also be had outside of the Divorce Act. The triggers for a divorcee under the Divorce Act are: 1 year of separation (a.k.a. no-fault divorce), or abuse, or adultery. [http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/D-3.4/index.html](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/D-3.4/index.html) _Family Benefits Act_, R.R.O. 1990, O. Reg. 366, as am.: either upon declaration by the spouses, or if there is a court order, or domestic contract, or right under the Family Law Act, to provide child or spousal support. [http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Regs/English/900366\_e.htm](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Regs/English/900366_e.htm) _Family Law Act_, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-3, as am.: 3 years, or in a relationship of some permanence if parents, but only as to custody, access, child support, spousal support, and dependant’s claim for damages when a supporting spouse is injured or killed. Not applicable to equalization of property. [http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90f03\_e.htm](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90f03_e.htm) _Health Care Consent Act_, 1996, S.O. 1996, Chapter 2, Schedule A, as am.: 1 year, or together as parents, or together with a cohabitation agreement. [http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/96h02\_e.htm](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/96h02_e.htm) _Human Rights Code_, R.S.O. 1990, c. 19: living in a conjugal relationship (no time requirement). [http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90h19\_e.htm](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90h19_e.htm) _Immigration and Protection of Refugees Act_, 2001, c. 27, as am.: 1 year. [http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-2.5/index.html](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-2.5/index.html) _Income Tax Act_, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), as am.: 1 year. [http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/i-3.3/70749.html](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/i-3.3/70749.html) _Indian Act_, R.S., 1985, c. I-5: 1 year, [http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/i-5/247900.html](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/i-5/247900.html) _Insurance Act_, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, as am.: live together in a conjugal relationship (no time requirement). [http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90i08\_e.htm](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90i08_e.htm) _Interpretation Act_, R.S., 1985, c. I-21, as am.: this act sets out that both the Common Law and the Civil Law (e.g. Statute Law) are equally authoritative and recognized sources of the law of property and civil rights in Canada. This is what lies at the root of couples being able to marry under customary law under the Common Law as long as the Civil / Statute Law does not specifically prohibit it. [http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-21/index.html](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-21/index.html) _Old Age Security Act_, R.S., 1985, c. O-9, as am.: 1 year. [http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/O-9/index.html](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/O-9/index.html) _Ontario Disability Support Program Act_, 1997, O. Reg. 222/98, as am.: 3 months, or upon declaration by the spouses, or if there is a court order, or domestic contract, or right under the Family Law Act, to provide child or spousal support. [http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Regs/English/980222\_e.htm](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Regs/English/980222_e.htm) _Ontario Works Act, 1997_, O. Reg 134/98, as am.: 3 months, or upon declaration by the spouses, or if there is a court order, or domestic contract, or right under the Family Law Act, to provide child or spousal support. [http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Regs/English/980134\_e.htm](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Regs/English/980134_e.htm) _Succession Law Reform Act_, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-26, as am… 3 years with respect to dependant’s relief. Not applicable to claims for a share of an estate. [http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90s26\_e.htm](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90s26_e.htm) _Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997_, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Schedule A, as am.: 1 year, or are parents together, or have made a cohabitation agreement. [http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/97w16\_e.htm](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/97w16_e.htm) _Youth Criminal Justice Act_, ( 2002, c. 1 ), as am.: a parent includes any person under a legal duty to provide for the young person or any person who has, in law or in fact, the custody or control. [http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Y-1.5/index.html](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Y-1.5/index.html)