Unjust enrichment claims for common-law partners in Ontario

Unmarried partners in Ontario have no right to an equalization payment, so a partner who helped build the other's wealth usually claims unjust enrichment. You must show your partner was enriched, you suffered a matching loss, and there was no legal reason for it. The usual remedy is money; a share of a property is possible when money is not enough.

How does an unjust enrichment claim work in Ontario?

Ontario's property-sharing scheme was written for married couples. Part I of the Family Law Act uses the definition of "spouse" in section 1(1), which covers people who are married to each other. The wider definition in section 29, which adds partners who lived together for three years or who had a child in a relationship of some permanence, applies only to the support part of the Act. So a common-law partner can ask for support but cannot ask for the half-the-difference payment that married spouses use. Our property division page sets out the full range of property claims.

What fills the gap is judge-made law. In Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, the Supreme Court of Canada set out how these claims work across the country, and Ontario courts apply it. A claim usually moves through these steps:

Sort out legal title first. Property in your own name is yours, and property in joint names is shared according to the title. A joint owner can ask the court to divide or sell land under section 2 of the Partition Act. The harder question is property in your partner's name alone.
List what you contributed. Money toward a down payment, mortgage or renovation counts. So does unpaid work: the Court confirmed that domestic services and child care can support a claim.
Prove the three elements. Your partner received and kept a real benefit from you, you suffered a corresponding loss, and there was no legal reason (a "juristic reason") for your partner to keep it.
Decide what remedy you are asking for. Usually a sum of money. Sometimes a share of a specific property, held for you in what the law calls a constructive trust.
Start the case in time. Limitation periods apply, and they differ depending on the remedy (see the table below).
File and disclose. The Family Law Rules apply to these claims between people who lived together (r. 1(2)(c)), and a claim for a constructive trust or an unjust enrichment award counts as a "property claim" (r. 2(1)). That means the longer financial statement, Form 13.1, and full disclosure of your finances.

Our page on financial disclosure in a property case lists the documents each side has to produce.

The three elements, in plain terms

Enrichment. The Court takes a straightforward economic view: you must have given your partner something tangible that your partner received and kept. Paying down the mortgage on a house in your partner's name is the classic example. Running the household so your partner could work long hours and grow a business can also qualify.

Corresponding deprivation. Your partner's gain must match a loss on your side. Money spent is an obvious loss. Time out of the paid workforce, without pay or pension credits of your own, can be one too.

No juristic reason. This is where most cases are fought. The test has two steps. First, the court asks whether the benefit fits an established reason in law, such as a gift or a legal obligation (a contract, for example). If none applies, your partner can still try to show another reason, based on the couple's reasonable expectations and public policy. At this second step the burden is on the partner who kept the benefit.

Both partners usually gave each other something. Kerr says those mutual benefits are mostly weighed after the three elements are proven, when the court decides how much is owed, rather than used to knock out the claim at the start.

Money or a share of the property?

Remedy	When courts use it	How it is measured	Limitation period
Money, "value received"	Specific services or payments, with no wider partnership	The value of what you provided, less what you received back	Generally two years from discovery (Limitations Act, 2002, s. 4)
Money, "value survived"	A joint family venture, with a link between your contributions and the wealth built	A share of the wealth built during the relationship, proportionate to your contributions	Generally two years from discovery, unless joined to a land claim
Constructive trust in land	Money is not enough, and your contributions are linked to acquiring, keeping up or improving a specific property	A share of that property proportionate to your contribution	Ten years (Real Property Limitations Act, s. 4), per McConnell v. Huxtable

In most cases a money award is enough. A constructive trust, which gives you an ownership share, is reserved for cases where a payment would not do the job, for example because your partner has no other means to pay, and where your contributions are tied to that particular property.

What is a joint family venture?

Kerr added an important option. Where a couple worked together as a true economic partnership, the claimant does not have to put a price on every load of laundry. Instead, the court can award a share of the wealth the couple built, in proportion to the claimant's contributions. To get there, you must prove the joint family venture and a link between your contributions and the growth in wealth.

The Court named four groups of factors:

Mutual effort: pooling effort and teamwork, deciding to have and raise children together, and the length of the relationship.
Economic integration: joint accounts, shared ownership and the extent to which finances were combined.
Actual intent: what the couple said and did, which may show a shared venture or may show they meant to keep things separate.
Priority of the family: whether one partner relied on the relationship to their own detriment, for example by leaving work to raise children, moving for the other's career or turning down promotions.

The Court was clear that living together does not by itself entitle anyone to share in a partner's property, and there is no presumption of equal sharing. The result depends on the evidence. That is why the questions of who paid for what, and who gave up what, carry so much weight.

What changes the answer

A cohabitation agreement. Partners can agree in writing on how property is owned or divided (Family Law Act, s. 53), and a valid agreement can supply the legal reason for one partner keeping a benefit. It must be in writing, signed and witnessed (s. 55(1)). If the agreement is unfair or was signed without disclosure, see our page on setting aside a domestic contract.
Marriage. If you later married, the equalization rules apply and a cohabitation agreement is treated as a marriage contract (s. 53(2)). Married spouses should start with how property is divided in Ontario instead.
The family home. Part II of the Family Law Act, including the right to stay in the home, also uses the married-only definition. Unmarried partners do not get those Part II rights in a home owned by the other partner. Our matrimonial home page explains the rules that apply only to married spouses.
Gifts and inheritances. Married spouses can exclude certain gifts and inheritances under section 4(2). Common-law claims do not use that list, but the source of an asset still matters to whether a benefit is "unjust". Compare our page on excluded property for married spouses.
The remedy you choose. In McConnell v. Huxtable, 2014 ONCA 86, the Court of Appeal held that a claim for a constructive trust over land is an action to recover land, with a ten-year limitation period, and that a money claim made in the alternative in the same case can shelter under it. A claim with no land in it is likely to face the two-year basic period.
When the clock starts. Under section 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002, a claim runs from when it was discovered. The Court of Appeal said that ordinarily this is not before the couple separates with no prospect of getting back together. An ultimate limit of 15 years from the act or omission applies (s. 15(2)).
Support is separate. A claim for support under the Family Law Act has no limitation period (Limitations Act, 2002, s. 16(1)(c)). Our page on spousal support for common-law partners covers who qualifies.

A worked example

For example, imagine a hypothetical couple, Alex and Jordan, who lived together for ten years and had two children. Jordan owned the house before they met and kept it in Jordan's name. Alex put $40,000 into a new kitchen and roof, and later stayed home for four years with the children while Jordan built a consulting business. They separated on June 1, 2024, with no prospect of reconciling.

During the relationship the couple's wealth grew by $500,000. Of that growth, $450,000 sits in Jordan's name (business and home equity) and $50,000 in Alex's name (savings). Suppose a court found a joint family venture and decided Alex's contributions justify 40% of the wealth built. Forty percent of $500,000 is $200,000. Alex already holds $50,000, so a money award of $150,000 would follow. If Jordan could not pay and Alex's renovation money was linked to the house, Alex might instead ask for a proportionate share of the house through a constructive trust.

The deadline depends on the claim. If Alex sought only money, the two-year period would likely run from about June 1, 2024, ending around June 1, 2026. If Alex claimed an interest in the house, the ten-year period would apply to that claim and the money claim made in the alternative. These figures are illustrations only; a real case turns on evidence.

Common mistakes common-law partners make

Assuming living together for three years gives you half. The three-year rule in section 29 is about support. It does not create any property right.
Waiting too long. A money-only claim can be lost two years after it is discovered. Our page on property deadlines in Ontario sets out the time limits that married spouses face, and they are different.
Throwing away proof of contributions. Bank transfers, renovation receipts, mortgage statements and records of time out of work are the evidence. Memories of who paid for what fade fast.
Calling payments "gifts". Describing money you gave your partner as a present, in texts or emails, can hand your partner a legal reason to keep it.
Undervaluing unpaid work. Child care and running the home can support a claim, especially where they freed your partner to build income or a business.
Not thinking about the cost of the fight. These claims often need business valuations and detailed evidence. Our page on what drives the cost of a property case explains the main drivers.

What to do this week

Write down the date you separated and the dates of any attempts to reconcile.
Gather proof of every payment you made toward property in your partner's name: transfers, receipts, mortgage and tax records.
Write a timeline of the relationship: moves, children, career changes, time out of work and who handled the household.
Collect statements showing what each of you owned when you moved in together and what you own now.
Find any cohabitation agreement or other written deal about property, and note who signed and witnessed it.
Read our plain-language overview of property division for common-law couples.
Book a free consultation so a lawyer can check which limitation period applies to your claim.

Frequently asked questions

Does it matter how long we lived together?

There is no minimum period for an unjust enrichment claim. Length matters as evidence: in Kerr, the Supreme Court listed the length of the relationship among the signs of a joint family venture. A short relationship can still support a claim for specific payments you made.

Can I claim if my name was never on the house?

Yes. That is the situation the claim is designed for. You need to show that your money or work benefited your partner, and that there was no legal reason for your partner to keep the benefit.

Is a resulting trust still an option?

In Kerr, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that a trust can arise only from a couple's "common intention". Traditional resulting trust principles can still matter, for example where one partner paid for property put in the other's name without receiving anything in return, but unjust enrichment is now the main route.

What if my partner also contributed to me?

The court considers it, mainly when deciding how much is owed. If your partner paid most of the household bills while you did most of the child care, each contribution is weighed. The claim is about the imbalance that remains.

Which court hears these claims in Toronto?

They are family law cases under the Family Law Rules. In Toronto, Superior Court of Justice family matters are heard at 361 University Avenue, and a property claim is often joined with a claim for support or parenting orders.

Can we settle without going to court?

Yes. Partners who are living separate and apart can sign a separation agreement dealing with ownership and division of property (Family Law Act, s. 54). Like any domestic contract, it must be in writing, signed and witnessed to be enforceable.

What is an unjust enrichment claim for common-law partners in Ontario?