As housing affordability continues to challenge families across Ontario, more couples are turning to multigenerational living arrangements as a practical solution. Rising home prices in cities like Toronto and Vancouver have made it increasingly common for married couples to move in with parents or in-laws. While these arrangements can offer financial relief and family support, they can also create significant legal uncertainty if a relationship later breaks down. On BNN Bloomberg, Shulman & Partners LLP explored the often-overlooked family law implications of living under a parent’s roof. The conversation highlighted how misunderstandings about intention, ownership, and contributions can quickly escalate into legal disputes.
“These disputes usually arise when there is a misunderstanding of intention, and nothing has been properly documented to reflect what the arrangement was meant to be.”
— Insights from Shulman & Partners LLP
The discussion focused on a scenario that is becoming increasingly common in Ontario: married couples moving into a parent or in-law’s home due to financial pressure. While the arrangement may begin casually, legal risks can emerge if the marriage later deteriorates. According to Shulman & Partners LLP, many of these disputes stem from a lack of clarity about intention at the outset.
From the parents’ perspective, allowing adult children and their spouses to live in the home does not automatically grant them rights to the property. However, without proper documentation, assumptions can quickly be challenged. Shulman & Partners LLP emphasized that parents who wish to avoid creating property rights should strongly consider documenting the arrangement through a rental agreement. Doing so helps establish that the occupants are tenants rather than individuals accruing an ownership interest.
For the couple living in the home, the issue often revolves around contributions. Financial payments toward mortgage costs, property taxes, or renovations, as well as labour that improves the property, can potentially form the basis of a claim for an equitable or beneficial interest. In the absence of written agreements, courts may be asked to infer intention by examining evidence such as payment records, renovation receipts, or patterns of contribution.
The discussion also highlighted that matters can become even more complex when multiple adults are involved in a shared living arrangement. The more parties contributing to a home, the harder it becomes to untangle who intended what and whether those contributions were meant as rent, family assistance, or an investment in the property. These situations often lead to costly litigation precisely because expectations were never clearly addressed.
Another key point was the growing prevalence of these arrangements in high-cost housing markets like Toronto and Vancouver. As affordability pressures persist, Shulman & Partners LLP expects to see more families navigating these issues. The takeaway is clear: informal family arrangements can carry serious legal consequences if they are not carefully structured.
Ultimately, the practical advice is to address these issues proactively. Open conversations, clear documentation, and legal guidance before moving in can help prevent disputes later. Understanding how family law treats intention and contribution is essential for protecting both family relationships and financial stability.
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.