The word “spouse” does not carry one fixed meaning across the law. In Ontario, whether a relationship is treated as spousal depends on which statute is being applied and which legal issue is on the table. A couple can meet the definition for support purposes but not for property purposes. A rule borrowed from a tax form, a benefits program, an insurance policy, or another jurisdiction does not decide an Ontario family-law question, and the Family Law Act does not impose a one-year cohabitation rule when a couple has a child together. The starting point for any Ontario family-law issue is to ask which section of which Act governs, and then read the definition inside that section.
This article explains the definitions that matter most in Ontario family law, why the distinction changes what a person can claim, and where common-law relationships fit. It is legal information, not advice about any specific relationship.
Two definitions inside Ontario’s Family Law Act
Ontario’s Family Law Act uses two different definitions of spouse, and they do different work.
Section 1(1): the married-spouse definition
For the property rules in Part I and the matrimonial-home rules in Part II, section 1(1) defines “spouse” as either of two persons who are married to each other, or who together entered into a marriage that is voidable or void, in good faith on the part of the person relying on this definition.
Section 29: the broader support definition
For the spousal-support rules in Part III, section 29 says “spouse” includes married spouses and also two unmarried persons who have either:
- cohabited continuously for a period of not less than three years, or
- cohabited in a relationship of some permanence, if they are the parents of a child as set out in section 4 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.
“Cohabit” is defined in the Act as living together in a conjugal relationship, whether within or outside marriage. It is not reduced to sharing an address.
Two points readers commonly get wrong deserve emphasis. First, the three-year branch requires continuous cohabitation. Second, when the couple has a child together, the Act does not impose a one-year minimum; it requires cohabitation “of some permanence.” For a fuller look at how these tests interact, see the discussion of common-law relationships in Ontario.
Why the definition changes the legal consequences
The definitions are worth reading closely because they open different doors.
Equalization of net family property
Under section 5 of the Family Law Act, equalization is generally triggered when a divorce is granted, a marriage is declared a nullity, or married spouses separate with no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation. The spouse with the lower net family property is generally entitled to one-half the difference between the spouses’ net family properties. This is an equalization calculation, not an automatic transfer of half of every asset, and exceptions and exclusions can affect the math.
Common-law partners and property
Unmarried partners who satisfy the section 29 support definition do not, by that fact alone, come inside the Part I equalization regime. Ontario’s public property guidance confirms that common-law couples are not legally required to split property acquired while living together. A partner who contributed to property owned by the other may have a claim, and a court application may be needed if the parties do not agree. Ownership, contributions, agreements, and equitable claims all matter and require fact-specific review.
Possession of the matrimonial home
Section 19 gives both married spouses an equal right to possession of a matrimonial home. That is a possession right, not a statement that both hold title or own equal shares. An unmarried partner does not obtain this Part II right simply by meeting section 29.
Spousal support
Section 30 says every spouse must provide support for themselves and the other spouse, according to need and to the extent they are capable. Section 33 permits a court to order support and requires consideration of a range of circumstances when setting amount and duration, if any: contributions, economic consequences, hardship, assets and means, capacity for self-support, needs, length of cohabitation, responsibilities assumed, domestic services, child-care effects, and other legal support rights. Meeting the spouse definition creates potential support rights and obligations; it does not guarantee support will be ordered, paid, or received. Situations where support is refused are discussed in this note on when spousal support is denied.
Married spouses and common-law partners at a glance
| Right or rule under Ontario law | Married spouses (FLA s. 1) | Common-law partners meeting FLA s. 29 |
|---|---|---|
| Equalization of net family property (FLA Part I, s. 5) | Available on separation, divorce, or nullity | Not available on the basis of s. 29 status alone |
| Equal right to possession of matrimonial home (FLA s. 19) | Yes | Not available on the basis of s. 29 status alone |
| Spousal-support obligation and application (FLA ss. 30, 33) | Yes | Yes, if the s. 29 threshold is met |
| Need to obtain a divorce to end the relationship | Yes, under the federal Divorce Act | No |
| Property claims based on ownership, contribution, or agreement | Possible, alongside equalization | Possible, on a fact-specific basis |
The table sets out the statutory position. It is not a prediction of what any court will decide in a given case.
The provincial Family Law Act and the federal Divorce Act
Two levels of legislation sit alongside each other.
The federal Divorce Act governs divorce and corollary relief for married spouses and former spouses. For listed support and parenting provisions, its definition of spouse includes a former spouse, and section 15.2 permits a court to make a spousal-support order on application by either or both spouses. Married-spouse support matters need not proceed only under the Divorce Act: Ontario’s Family Law Act also contains support jurisdiction under Part III, and the proper route depends on the proceeding and the facts.
Common-law partners who never married do not need and do not obtain a divorce under the Divorce Act. That does not remove the rights they may have under Ontario legislation.
The Family Law Act’s equalization and matrimonial-home rules arise under Ontario law, not under the federal Divorce Act. Obtaining a divorce does not, by itself, resolve or transfer property; the property analysis is a separate exercise.
Current parenting terminology
As of March 1, 2021, the Divorce Act no longer uses “custody” and “access” as its current parenting terms. It now refers to “parenting time” and “decision-making responsibility.” “Contact” refers to court-ordered time between a child and a non-parent who is important to the child. This is a terminology change in the federal statute; it does not alter the section 29 threshold under Ontario’s Family Law Act, and terminology alone does not decide any parenting outcome.
Same-sex spouses
Both the married-spouse definition in section 1 and the support definition in section 29 use gender-neutral wording: “either of two persons.” The federal Civil Marriage Act defines civil marriage as the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. Same-sex married spouses and same-sex unmarried partners are assessed under the same statutory criteria described above. There is no separate threshold based on sex, gender, or sexual orientation.
Agreements between partners
Ontario law recognizes domestic contracts that let couples set out their own arrangements.
Cohabitation agreements
Two unmarried persons who cohabit or intend to cohabit may enter a cohabitation agreement addressing rights and obligations during cohabitation, on separation, or on death, including property ownership or division and support obligations. A cohabitation agreement cannot determine parenting time or decision-making responsibility in advance. A domestic contract is unenforceable unless it is in writing, signed by the parties, and witnessed. Whether a particular agreement will be upheld depends on the facts. More context is available in this overview of a cohabitation agreement in Ontario.
Separation agreements
Two persons who cohabited and now live separate and apart may enter a separation agreement addressing property, support, parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and other matters connected with settling their affairs. A court is not bound on every child-related issue by what the parties agreed. The general framework is outlined in this discussion of an Ontario separation agreement.
Estate consequences
Definitions of spouse also shape what happens on death.
For Ontario intestacy rules under the Succession Law Reform Act, “spouse” generally carries the Family Law Act section 1 married-spouse meaning. A surviving married spouse may have statutory intestacy rights. An unmarried common-law partner does not receive an automatic intestate share by meeting the section 29 support definition. Separation-related statutory rules can also affect a married spouse’s entitlement; that scenario is outside this article’s determination and calls for case-specific review.
For dependant-support claims under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act, “spouse” uses the broader section 29 meaning and includes certain former spouses. A court may order support from an estate when the deceased did not make adequate provision for the proper support of a dependant. This is a potential claim, not an automatic inheritance share.
Frequently asked questions
How long do you have to live together to be considered a spouse in Ontario?
For section 29 spousal-support purposes, unmarried partners qualify after cohabiting continuously for at least three years, or in a relationship of some permanence if they are the parents of a child, with no one-year minimum on the child branch. Cohabitation alone does not bring a couple inside Part I equalization or Part II matrimonial-home rules.
Does a common-law partner have the same rights as a spouse?
Not in every respect: a common-law partner who meets section 29 can be a spouse for Part III support, but section 29 status alone does not bring them inside Part I equalization or the Part II equal right to possession of the matrimonial home. Fact-specific property claims based on ownership, contribution, agreement, or an equitable basis can still arise; see the common-law relationships in Ontario resource.
What is the legal definition of spouse in Ontario?
There is no single definition: section 1(1) of the Family Law Act governs property and matrimonial-home rules and covers married persons and certain void or voidable marriages entered in good faith, while section 29 governs Part III support and also reaches unmarried partners meeting the three-year or child-and-permanence branches. Other statutes, including the federal Divorce Act and the Succession Law Reform Act, use their own definitions for their own purposes.
Where this leaves you
Whether a relationship satisfies cohabitation, continuity, or “some permanence,” and whether a person is entitled to property or support, depends on the facts and the applicable law. The point of reading these definitions is to identify which one is in play: a property question under Part I, a home-possession question under Part II, a support question under Part III or the Divorce Act, or an estate question under the Succession Law Reform Act.
