BNN Bloomberg: Cohabitation Agreements Explained - Featuring Ron Shulman, Shulman & Partners

As more Canadians choose to live together without getting married, common-law relationships are becoming increasingly common, particularly in high-cost housing markets like Toronto and across Ontario. While cohabitation may feel like a simpler or more flexible alternative to marriage, many people do not fully understand how the law treats common-law couples if the relationship ends. In an interview with BNN Bloomberg, Ron Shulman, Managing Partner at Shulman & Partners LLP, addressed these misconceptions and explained why cohabitation agreements are an essential but often overlooked planning tool. His commentary highlights the legal and financial risks that can arise when couples move in together without clear agreements in place, and why early conversations about expectations, property, and contributions can help avoid costly disputes later on.

“Common-law spouses do not have any statutory property division regime in Ontario.”
— Ron Shulman, Managing Partner at Shulman & Partners LLP

During the interview, Ron focused on one of the most common misunderstandings he sees in his family law practice: the assumption that common-law relationships are treated the same as marriages under Ontario law. Many couples believe that once they have lived together for a certain period, their legal rights automatically mirror those of married spouses. According to Ron, this belief often leads to shock and frustration when relationships break down.

He explained that, unlike married couples, common-law partners in Ontario do not benefit from a statutory property division framework. Married spouses are subject to an equalization regime under the Family Law Act, which provides a formula-based approach to dividing assets accumulated during the marriage. Common-law couples, however, have no such automatic protections. Instead, a partner seeking a share of property must rely on complex trust-based claims and prove their individual contributions, whether financial or otherwise.

This process, Ron noted, is often expensive, time-consuming, and evidence-driven. Many people do not keep detailed records of contributions such as mortgage payments, renovations, property taxes, or periods where one partner covered household expenses while the other was out of work. Without documentation, these claims can become difficult to establish, increasing both legal costs and emotional strain.

The discussion also addressed why many couples delay or avoid cohabitation agreements altogether. Some enter common-law relationships gradually, without a clear moment where legal planning feels necessary. Others believe such agreements are unnecessary early on, particularly if neither party has significant assets at the beginning of the relationship. Ron emphasized that while this may be true initially, assets often accumulate over time, making the absence of an agreement more problematic later.

According to him, the purpose of a cohabitation agreement is not to anticipate failure, but to create predictability and stability. These agreements can clarify how expenses will be shared, whether bank accounts will be joint or separate, how property contributions will be treated, and what happens if one partner contributes to an asset registered solely in the other’s name. By addressing these issues upfront, couples can significantly reduce uncertainty and conflict if the relationship ends.

He encouraged couples to begin with honest conversations about expectations and fairness, and then seek legal advice to formalize those discussions into a clear agreement. Doing so can help common-law partners achieve a level of certainty similar to that enjoyed by married couples under statute.

Watch the full BNN Bloomberg segment here.

This media appearance is part of Shulman & Partners LLP’s ongoing contributions to Canadian family law discussions. Explore more of our media features in our In the Media archive.