'Estranged spouses living together' not common-law partners: court

The test to determine whether estranged but not divorced spouses living together as roommates are common-law partners isn’t covered by the Manitoba Assistance Act nor the Family Maintenance Act, the Manitoba Court of Appeal has ruled.

In Singleton v Fort Garry/River Heights (Director), 2022 MBCA 24, Karen Singleton separated from her husband in 2014 but they never divorced. Singleton, who was disabled, received benefits under The Manitoba Assistance Act, CCSM c. A150, since she was unable to earn income sufficient to meet her basic needs.

Singleton was facing homelessness, so her estranged husband agreed move her into his home. They were not reconciling and their relationship was akin to roommates sharing living expenses.

After an investigation, the Director concluded that under s. 18(3) of the Manitoba Assistance Act, they were considered common-law partners and, since Singleton would not provide her estranged husband’s financial information, the Director terminated her benefits. Singleton appealed the decision to the Social Services Appeal Board, which confirmed the decision. The board ruled that since the two were “legally married and do not have a legal separation agreement, the provisions of The Family Maintenance Act, CCSM c F20,  apply.” Singleton applied for leave to appeal the Board’s decision.

The appellate court granted the leave to appeal on the sole question of whether Singleton and her estranged husband were living separate and apart or whether they had reconciled and were living in a conjugal partnership.

Both the Director and the board applied the incorrect test to determine if Singleton was single or had a spouse, said the court in rescinding the termination of Singleton’s benefits.

As to Singleton’s claim to retroactively reinstate her benefits, the appellate court ruled that the findings on record were insufficient to warrant a substitution of the board’s decision, since the records of the case – the Director’s investigation and report along with the board’s decision – were also based on the incorrect tests. Thus, the appellate court directed the board to hold a new hearing, re-evaluate the matter, and apply the correct test.