The couple did not consistently share a home or engage in typical marital activities: court
The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed a claim of spousal status under the Family Law Act (FLA), finding insufficient evidence of continuous cohabitation or a marriage-like relationship.
The dispute in Antoniuk v Beveridge, 2024 BCSC 2034 centred on whether the claimant and respondent lived together in a marriage-like relationship from September 2017 to January 2020. The claimant argued that their cohabitation began when she moved to BC with her daughters, and the respondent relocated to the area. She alleged that their relationship fulfilled the legal requirements of being continuous and akin to marriage. The respondent disagreed, maintaining that they did not live together continuously and that their interactions did not constitute a marriage-like bond.
The court found that the couple only lived together briefly, between December 2017 and April 2018, when the respondent’s trailer was parked at the claimant’s rental home in Halfmoon Bay. Even during that time, the respondent primarily stayed in his trailer and had limited access to the house. After April 2018, the respondent resided in his trailer on a separate lot in Madeira Park, while the claimant and her daughters lived in the house. The court concluded that this arrangement, with restricted access and separate living quarters, did not constitute cohabitation for the purposes of the FLA.
In assessing the nature of the relationship, the Supreme Court examined whether it exhibited characteristics associated with marriage, such as shared shelter, emotional intimacy, economic interdependence, and societal perception. The court determined that the evidence did not support the claimant’s position. The couple did not consistently share a home or engage in typical marital activities. The respondent often required permission to enter the claimant’s residence, and their social and financial arrangements lacked the hallmarks of a committed partnership.
The court also noted the claimant’s refusal to assist the respondent in his application for permanent residency in Canada, despite his request for her support as his common-law spouse. This, according to the court, demonstrated a lack of mutual commitment indicative of a marriage-like relationship.
The court also scrutinized the claimant’s financial contributions. She argued that her monthly payments toward the mortgage on the respondent’s property in Madeira Park reflected shared financial responsibility. However, the court found that these payments were consistently referred to as rent in contemporaneous communications and did not signify co-ownership or financial interdependence.
Ultimately, the court ruled that the claimant failed to establish the two-year continuous cohabitation required under the FLA or prove their relationship was marriage-like. As a result, the court dismissed the claimant’s action.
