Common-Law Traps in Quebec: The Eric v. Lola Ruling and Legal Realities After 7 Years

Many Chinese immigrant families living in Quebec assume that a few years of cohabitation is the legal equivalent of marriage. They are wrong. This misconception can leave one partner with nothing on the day a relationship ends. This article, written by the SiLaw Legal Research Team, walks through the legal differences in common-law status across Canadian provinces, focusing on the Quebec “trap” that has cost countless people dearly — and the protective measures you can take right now.

—

Part 1: What Is a “Common-Law” or “De Facto” Relationship?

A common-law partnership (Common-Law Partnership, or union de fait / de facto couple in Quebec) refers to two people who live together in a conjugal relationship without being legally married. In everyday Chinese-language usage, the term is often rendered as “同居伴侣” (cohabiting partner) or “未婚伴侣” (unmarried partner).

The critical question in Canadian law is: How long must two people cohabit before they are legally recognized? Even more important: Once recognized, what protections actually apply? The answers to both questions are worlds apart between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

Federal Standard: 12 Consecutive Months of Cohabitation

At the federal level, both Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) apply a uniform standard: 12 consecutive months of cohabitation constitute a “common-law partner” for federal purposes. This standard applies to:

• Family Class Sponsorship (spouse/partner immigration sponsorship)
• Federal personal income tax T1 returns (filing as spouse or common-law partner)
• Federal benefit calculations including GST/HST credits and the Canada Child Benefit (CCB, 牛奶金)
• Federal government employee benefit plans (health insurance, life insurance beneficiary designations, etc.)

Note: Federal “recognition” is limited to federal rights and obligations. It does not grant a common-law partner any property rights under provincial family law. This is precisely the root of the Quebec problem.

—

Part 2: How Different Provinces Define and Protect Common-Law Relationships

Family law in Canada falls under provincial jurisdiction, and the recognition thresholds and legal consequences of “common-law” status vary significantly across provinces. The table below summarizes the key rules in major provinces:

Core warning: Quebec is the only province in Canada that has explicitly legislated to exclude common-law partners entirely from the matrimonial property regime and spousal support obligations. This is not a legal loophole — it is a deliberate legislative choice, confirmed as constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2013.

—

Part 3: Eric v. Lola — The Supreme Court Ruling That Shook All of Canada

Background

On January 25, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued its decision in Quebec (Attorney General) v. A (2013 SCC 5). Known in the media as “Eric v. Lola” — pseudonyms for the two parties — this case is one of the most influential family law precedents in Quebec in recent decades.

The facts were as follows:

• “Eric” was an extremely wealthy Brazilian businessman with substantial assets in Quebec.
• “Lola” was a young Brazilian woman who had cohabited with Eric for approximately 7 years and had 3 children with him.
• Throughout the relationship, Lola gave up her own career to care for the family and children full time.
• The two never married. After separation, Lola was left with virtually nothing.
• Lola argued before the courts that the Quebec Civil Code (CCQ) — by excluding de facto spouses from the family patrimony (patrimoine familial, 家庭遗产) division, spousal support (aliments, 赡养费), and acquests (société d’acquêts, 后得财产) regime — violated section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (equality rights).

How Did the Supreme Court Rule?

The Supreme Court held, by a narrow 5-to-4 majority, that Quebec’s legislative choice was not unconstitutional. The key reasoning was as follows:

1. Principle of autonomy: The Quebec legislature took the view that adults have the right to choose whether to marry and whether to accept the obligations of the matrimonial property regime. De facto partners have “chosen” not to marry and therefore have “chosen” not to be protected by that regime.
2. Legislative margin of appreciation: Provincial legislatures have broad policy discretion in the field of family law, and courts should respect the legislator’s choice.
3. Dissenting opinion (Chief Justice McLachlin et al.): The dissent argued that the legislation created discrimination against vulnerable groups, and in particular constituted substantive inequality for the economically weaker party in the relationship — typically women.

Concrete Consequences of the Ruling: What Quebec Common-Law Partners Cannot Claim

Key detail: Child support is the exception. Regardless of whether the parents are married, Quebec parents are legally obligated to pay child support. Lola ultimately received child support in the Eric v. Lola case — but her claim for personal spousal support was dismissed.

—

Part 4: A Real-World Case Study — 7 Years Together, 2 Children, One Separation. What Can She Claim?

The following is a fictional but highly realistic scenario representative of situations the SiLaw Legal Research Team has encountered among Chinese immigrant families in Quebec. All names are pseudonyms.

—

Part 5: The Only Legal Remedy — The Unjust Enrichment Action

Quebec civil law provides one avenue of redress for separating de facto partners: the action in unjust enrichment (action en enrichissement injustifié, articles 1493–1496 of the Civil Code of Quebec). This is the only legal mechanism by which a common-law partner who has no cohabitation agreement may seek compensation from a court.

Elements of the Claim (All Must Be Proven)

1. The other party was enriched (enrichissement);
2. The claimant suffered a corresponding impoverishment (appauvrissement);
3. There is a causal connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment;
4. There is no juridical justification for the enrichment (sans justification).

Practical Difficulties

• Heavy burden of proof: The claimant must quantify their contribution — unpaid domestic work, childcare, career sacrifices made for the other partner — and present it in economic terms to the court. Expert witnesses are required and are expensive.
• Uncertain outcome: Judges have broad discretion. The compensation awarded may be far less than expected, or the claim may be dismissed entirely.
• Long litigation timeline: Such cases in Quebec courts typically take 2–5 years to conclude.
• High costs: Legal fees generally range from CAD 30,000 to CAD 100,000 or more, depending on the complexity of the case.
• Limitation period: Under article 2925 of the Civil Code, an unjust enrichment action must be brought within 3 years of the end of the relationship (calculated from the date the relationship ended).

Practical note: An unjust enrichment action is a last resort — damage control after the fact — not a reliable substitute for a cohabitation agreement. Its very existence underscores why signing an agreement in advance is essential.

—

Part 6: Protecting Yourself — Four Lines of Defence for Quebec Common-Law Partners

First Line of Defence: Notarized Cohabitation Agreement (Convention de vie commune)

A notarized cohabitation agreement is the most important self-protection tool available to Quebec common-law partners. Through this agreement, both parties can voluntarily create the rights that the law does not automatically extend to them. A comprehensive agreement should cover:

• Property ownership clauses: Clearly specifying which assets belong to each party separately and which are shared (and in what proportions);
• Shared expense allocation: How household expenses and mortgage payments are to be divided;
• Separation compensation clauses: If one partner sacrifices their career for the family, a clause providing economic compensation to that partner upon separation (a form of “contractual support”);
• Debt isolation clauses: Ensuring that one partner’s debts do not become the other’s liability;
• Home disposition clauses: What happens to the shared home upon separation (sale, buyout, etc.);
• Child arrangement clauses (if applicable): Broad principles regarding child support and access.

Notarized vs. lawyer-witnessed: A cohabitation agreement can be drafted by either a lawyer or a notary, but it is strongly recommended to have it notarized. A notarized agreement carries greater evidentiary weight in Quebec courts and is far harder to challenge after the fact (because the notary is required to confirm that both parties understand and are signing voluntarily).

Cost estimate: In Montreal, notary fees for a standard notarized cohabitation agreement typically range from CAD 800 to CAD 2,500 depending on complexity. Each party retaining a separate lawyer to review the agreement (strongly recommended) may add CAD 1,000–3,000 per person. Compared to the potential cost of litigation running into the hundreds of thousands, this is a highly worthwhile investment.

Second Line of Defence: A Will (Testament)

This is the most frequently overlooked blind spot — and also the easiest to remedy. Quebec’s intestate succession rules (CCQ art. 653–696) are unambiguous: a common-law partner is not among the legal heirs. If your partner dies without a will, their entire estate passes to parents, siblings, and more distant relatives in order — you, as a long-term partner, receive nothing.

The solution is straightforward: make a will that explicitly names the assets you wish to leave to your partner. Quebec recognizes three forms of will: the holograph will (entirely handwritten and signed by the testator), the notarized will (most authoritative; no probate required), and the witnessed will. A notarized will is the recommended choice and typically costs approximately CAD 300–600.

Third Line of Defence: Beneficiary Designations (Désignation de bénéficiaire)

For the following accounts and products, you can designate your partner as a direct beneficiary — bypassing the will and estate process entirely:

• Life insurance (Assurance vie): Name your partner as the beneficiary directly in the insurance contract;
• RRSP / RRIF: Under federal tax rules, you may name a spouse or common-law partner as the designated beneficiary (tax-free rollover on death);
• TFSA (Tax-Free Savings Account): Your partner can be named “successor holder,” enabling a tax-free transfer;
• Group insurance and employee benefit plans: Update beneficiary information to designate your partner.

Beneficiary designations take priority over a will and are the most direct, lowest-cost way to transfer assets. Many people forget to update their beneficiary designations when a relationship changes, resulting in assets flowing to a former partner or estranged relatives.

Fourth Line of Defence: Co-Ownership Registration (Copropriété)

If both partners purchase a property together, the ownership shares should be specified clearly at the time of registration (e.g., 50/50 or in proportion to each party’s contribution), and the property should be registered in co-ownership (indivision) rather than in only one partner’s name. If the property is registered solely in one partner’s name, the other partner will have no claim to any share upon separation (except through an unjust enrichment action).

Summary: All four lines of defence are necessary. The cohabitation agreement protects the property arrangement during the relationship; the will protects the transfer of assets after death; beneficiary designations protect specific financial accounts; co-ownership registration protects jointly purchased property. These four elements complement each other and together form a complete legal protection system for Quebec common-law partners.

—

Part 7: The IRCC Perspective — “Common-Law Partner” and “Conjugal Partner” in Immigration Sponsorship

For the Chinese immigrant community, one of the most direct applications of “common-law partnership” status is Family Class Sponsorship (配偶/伴侣担保移民). Understanding how IRCC defines its three categories of partner relationships is essential.

IRCC’s Three Partner Categories

Conjugal Partner: Special Notes

The “conjugal partner” category is frequently misunderstood. Its core logic is this: both parties want to cohabit but objectively cannot do so, and sponsorship proceeds on that basis. Typical situations where it applies include:

• One partner is a citizen of a country whose laws do not permit the two people to legally cohabit (e.g., due to nationality or religious law restrictions);
• The sponsee has repeatedly applied for a visa to come to Canada and live with the sponsor, but the visa has been repeatedly refused;
• Both parties have maintained a stable long-distance marriage-equivalent relationship for over 12 months (letters, remittances, visit records, etc.).

Important: The conjugal partner sponsorship category is explicitly designated by IRCC as a “last resort.” If the two parties could in fact cohabit — for example, the sponsee could legally reside in Canada but the parties simply “choose” to live apart — IRCC will refuse an application filed under the conjugal partner category. If the two people can cohabit in Canada or a third country, they should first satisfy the 12-month cohabitation requirement for “common-law partner” status before applying.

Federal Tax Treatment: Spouse-Equivalent Status After 12 Months of Cohabitation

Under section 248(1) of the federal Income Tax Act, once you and your partner have cohabited for 12 months, your partner is treated as a “common-law partner” for federal tax purposes, and the following tax benefits apply immediately:

• T1 joint filing: You may claim your partner as “spouse or common-law partner” on your tax return and apply for the Spouse or Common-Law Partner Amount (in 2025, the basic amount is approximately CAD 15,705);
• GST/HST credit: Calculated as a family unit, which may increase the refund;
• Canada Child Benefit (CCB): Calculated on combined family income, affecting the monthly benefit amount;
• Spousal RRSP: You may contribute to your partner’s RRSP account for income splitting in retirement, reducing the household’s overall tax burden;
• Tax-deferred asset transfers: Transfers of assets between partners (e.g., a principal residence) may qualify for a capital gains rollover, deferring taxes.

Important reminder: Recognition as a “common-law partner” for federal tax purposes is automatic — no application is required. However, you have an obligation to truthfully update your partner status on your T1 return. Deliberately concealing a change in status may lead to reassessments and penalties from the CRA.

—

Part 8: After Eric v. Lola — The Reform Debate and the 2026 Status Quo

The 2013 ruling triggered years of sustained reform debate within Quebec. The following is a timeline of key developments:

Reform Timeline

• 2015: The Quebec Family Law Advisory Committee (Comité consultatif sur le droit de la famille) published a report recommending partial property protection for cohabiting relationships of 7 years or more, or for those involving children — structured as an “opt-out” model (default protection, which parties could contractually exclude).
• 2020: A prior Liberal government tabled Bill 2 (Projet de loi n°2), proposing to introduce a concept of “undifferentiated family status” (famille à statut indifférencié) for long-term cohabiting partners, with limited property protection. The bill sparked fierce public debate: conservatives argued it infringed personal freedom; progressives argued the protections were inadequate.
• 2021–2022: Bill 2 stalled in the legislative process and was not passed before the end of the parliamentary session.
• 2023: The Quebec Ministry of Justice announced a restart of family law reform discussions and commissioned a new round of public consultations.
• 2025–2026: As of this article’s publication date (April 2026), Quebec has not enacted any legislation granting automatic property protection to de facto partners. The existing legal framework confirmed by Eric v. Lola remains in force. Significant political disagreement persists over the direction of reform, and no fundamental change is expected in the near term.

The 2026 reality: Do not wait for legislative reform to protect yourself. Until new law takes effect — and there is no guarantee that it will — the only effective protection for Quebec common-law partners is a private agreement. Act now rather than banking on a policy change.

—

Part 9: Practical Guide to Notarized Cohabitation Agreements

Why Notarization Is Essential

In Quebec, a private document (an agreement signed only by the two parties) carries far less legal weight than a notarized document. A notarized cohabitation agreement offers the following advantages:

• Presumption of authenticity: A notarized document is presumed authentic; no additional proof is required;
• Enforceable directly: A notarized agreement can be enforced in Quebec courts without separate litigation;
• Difficult to challenge after the fact: A claim of “signed under duress” or “did not understand the content” is very hard to sustain, because the notary is obligated to explain the content to both parties and confirm their free consent;
• Formal archival registration: The agreement is filed with the Chambre des notaires du Québec (Quebec Chamber of Notaries) and remains valid even if the paper copy is lost.

Agreement-Signing Process

1. Each party retains their own lawyer (strongly recommended): Both partners consult independent lawyers to understand their rights and the legal consequences of the agreement. A notary drafts the agreement but represents both parties simultaneously and cannot provide partisan legal advice to either.
2. Drafting: The initial draft is typically prepared by one party’s lawyer or notary; both lawyers then review and revise.
3. Asset disclosure: Both parties fully and honestly disclose their respective assets (real estate, investments, bank deposits) and liabilities, which are attached as schedules to the agreement.
4. Comprehension and consent: The notary explains each clause of the agreement to both parties, confirming that both understand and are signing entirely of their own free will.
5. Notarial execution: Both parties sign before the notary, who affixes their seal and files the agreement.

Cost Reference (Montreal, 2026 Estimates)

When to sign: the earlier, the better. Ideally, an agreement is signed at the start of cohabitation or as soon as the relationship stabilizes. Raising the subject once the relationship is in crisis often meets with resistance from the other partner, and a court may question the voluntariness of the agreement.

—

Part 10: Common Misconceptions Among Chinese Immigrants — Corrected

The SiLaw Legal Research Team has identified the following most common misconceptions among Chinese immigrant families, addressed one by one:

—

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: I have lived with my partner in Quebec for 10 years. Can they claim my house — which I bought before the relationship — if we separate?

If the house is registered solely in your name and you have no cohabitation agreement, the property belongs entirely to you in law and your partner has no claim to any share. However, your partner may attempt an unjust enrichment action, arguing that their contributions over those 10 years (e.g., paying part of the mortgage, renovation costs, or unpaid domestic work) increased the value of the property. If successful, the court may order you to pay a monetary sum — but will not compel a transfer of title.

Q2: Does a cohabitation agreement have to be signed before moving in together? Can we still sign one after two years of cohabitation?

An agreement can be signed at any time, but the sooner the better. Partners who are already living together can absolutely sign a cohabitation agreement; the agreement takes effect from the date of signing (and in principle does not apply retroactively unless explicitly stated in the agreement). Note that an agreement signed after the relationship has begun to deteriorate may face later challenges on the grounds of “coerced signing” — it is advisable to complete the process with a lawyer’s involvement.

Q3: I cohabited in Ontario for 3 years, then moved to Quebec and cohabited for another 2 years before separating. Which province’s law applies?

Generally speaking, family law proceedings are heard in the courts of the jurisdiction where both parties resided together at the time of separation. If you were living in Quebec at the time of the separation, Quebec courts typically have jurisdiction and will apply Quebec law. The years spent cohabiting in Ontario generally cannot be “carried over” and credited under Quebec law. This question may involve complex conflict of laws issues — you should consult a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.

Q4: My partner and I are registered at the same address on our visas, but we sleep in separate rooms. Does that count as cohabitation?

IRCC’s requirement for “cohabitation” goes beyond a shared address — it requires that both parties live together in a conjugal relationship. If the two people merely share an address without a genuine partner relationship, IRCC may determine that the common-law partner requirement is not met. In its assessment, an immigration officer will consider factors such as the degree of financial integration, social recognition (whether friends and family perceive the two as a couple), and joint decision-making.

Q5: My partner has just died unexpectedly. We had no will. Can I stay in our shared home?

This depends on how the home is titled. If the property is registered in co-ownership (indivision) (e.g., 50/50 between both partners), you retain your half-interest; your partner’s half passes to their estate under the rules of intestate succession (to their relatives). If the property is registered solely in your partner’s name, you have no ownership interest whatsoever, and the heirs may require you to vacate. To protect your right to remain in the home, your partner must make a will during their lifetime, or the property must be registered in both names.

Q6: How is child support calculated in Quebec if we have children?

Quebec child support is calculated according to the Regulation respecting the determination of child support payments (Règlement sur la fixation des pensions alimentaires pour enfants). The main variables are: (1) the net annual income of each parent; (2) the number of children; and (3) the custody time allocation (the percentage of time each parent cares for the children). The support amount is entirely independent of whether the parents were married — children of common-law partners have exactly the same rights as children of married parents. Where the income gap between the parents is significant, the higher-earning parent pays a proportionally larger share. Estimates can be produced using the Quebec Ministry of Justice’s online calculator (Simulateur de calcul de la pension alimentaire). For a detailed explanation of support calculations, see Episode 13 of this series: Spousal Support and Child Support: How the Numbers Are Calculated.

Q7: What is the difference between a cohabitation agreement and a marriage contract (prenuptial agreement)?

A marriage contract (Contrat de mariage) is designed for partners who are about to marry. It establishes the matrimonial property regime during the marriage (e.g., separation of property, acquests regime) and the property arrangement upon dissolution. A cohabitation agreement (Convention de vie commune) is designed specifically for partners who do not intend to marry (or have not yet married), filling the gap left by Quebec law. If you later decide to marry, the cohabitation agreement will typically need to be updated and converted into a marriage contract. For a detailed explanation of marriage contracts, see Episode 4 of this series: Prenuptial Agreements: Protecting Everything You Bring Into the Marriage.

—

Conclusion: Equal Rights Require You to Act

Canada’s family law system is complex, and Quebec’s legislative choices diverge fundamentally from those of other provinces. Eric v. Lola is a reminder that the law does not automatically protect every long-term cohabiting relationship — in Quebec, that protection must be created by the parties themselves.

For Chinese immigrants living in Quebec, a cultural tendency to avoid “legal formalities” often leads people to overlook the need for an agreement when the relationship is going well. By the time the relationship breaks down, it is too late to discover that the law offers no assistance.

SiLaw Legal Recommendations:

1. If you are currently living in a common-law relationship in Quebec, consult a family lawyer or notary immediately to assess whether you need a cohabitation agreement;
2. Whether or not you sign a cohabitation agreement, make a will and update your beneficiary designations;
3. If you are considering partner sponsorship immigration, understand IRCC’s distinction between “common-law partner” and “conjugal partner” and prepare adequate supporting documentation in advance;
4. If you have already separated but have not taken legal action, be aware of the 3-year limitation period for an unjust enrichment claim.

Equal rights in the law require you to actively pursue them.

—

—

This article is written by the SiLaw Legal Research Team for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not establish a lawyer-client relationship. Family law situations vary by individual circumstances — please consult a licensed lawyer or notary for advice specific to your situation. Legal information is current as of April 2026; please refer to the most current legislation for any subsequent changes.

—

[← Back to 2026 Canada Marriage & Divorce Legal Playbook Hub](https://silaws.com/marriage-divorce-strategy-guide-2026-en/)