“Situationships” have become one of the defining dating trends of the last few years. These are deliberately-undefined relationships, with no label, and no “what are we” conversation. It’s a very modern way to avoid commitment.
Ontario’s Family Law Act was never designed with this trend in mind; it was enacted at a more traditional time, when getting married was the norm. In fact, one of the truly ground-breaking features of the legislation, was its recognition that unmarried common-law couples had rights and obligations toward each other.
Now, with “situationships” firmly on the dating landscape, it’s important to know that the law does not focus on what people call themselves.
A few years back, we wrote about Climans v. Latner – the case where a Toronto businessman argued that his partner of 14 years was merely “a travel companion, his girlfriend, nothing more.” The court disagreed with that characterization, finding instead that the two people were spouses, despite the fact that they never shared a home. Among other things, it pointed to the fact that they spent every summer together at his cottage, and every other winter weekend at his Florida condo, on a predictable, recurring pattern.
A recent British Columbia decision, Major v. Lacey, tells almost the same story: The pair were together for 18 years, and the man – a tech company CEO – was far wealthier than the woman. They engaged in extensive travel together, but had separate homes in different cities. They visited each other in Toronto, Vancouver, and points in between, but never settled into anything the court could call a shared residence.
As the court described, the man disclaimed the existence of any full-fledged relationship:
[N]ear the end of his direct examination, Mr. Lacey was asked how committed he was to the relationship with Ms. Major. In response, he said that he felt it was more of a friendship than a marriage and that, because they saw each other only about once a month, he never felt it was a committed relationship.
The court found the man’s credibility significantly lacking, and wrote that it “defies belief” to call the relationship a “friendship,” after 17 years of monogamy, shared holidays, several marriage proposals and a 7.5-carat diamond ring.
Nonetheless – in light of the strict wording of the B.C. law – the court was unable to conclude that they were spouses, since they kept separate homes and never actually lived together at any location on a regular, predicable basis.
Interestingly, an Ontario court reached a different conclusion on similar facts recently. In Byrne v. Milner, one partner argued the couple hadn’t really cohabited during years when his work took him to Alberta for months at a time. The court rejected that argument too, citing Climans for the proposition that cohabitation “does not depend solely on parties being continuously present within the same residence” — finding the couple were spouses despite the gaps.
Three different couples, three different outcomes, all wrestling with the same basic question. For anyone keeping their relationship deliberately casual and undefined, the lesson is not that “living apart protects you” or that “living apart doesn’t protect you.” It’s that the answer turns on details most partners couples never think about: Where you actually spend your nights, and how regularly.
For the full text of the decisions, see:
Climans v. Latner, 2019 ONSC 1311 (CanLII)
Climans v. Latner, 2020 ONCA 554 (CanLII)
Major v. Lacey, 2026 BCSC 1362 (CanLII)
Byrne v. Milner, 2025 ONSC 5272 (CanLII)
At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at www.RussellAlexander.com
