Friends with benefits or common law partners? Reviewing Cazabon v. Cazabon 2024 ABKB 606
It is a common argument in family law, for separating to argue about when the date of cohabitation took place. The date of cohabitation is a relevant date because it can be used as a part of establishing an entitlement to property division, or support, or an unjust enrichment claim, before the actual marriage. In particular, it is very common for parties to argue that they were not cohabitating, but rather they were roommates or there was a landlord tenant relationship.
In Cazabon v. Cazabon 2024 ABKB 606, the the couple was married in 2015 and separated in 2018. The wife filed for divorce and division of property, including a claim for unjust enrichment. The husband contested the wife's claims. In particular, the husband argued that the date of cohabitation was not until 2013. The husband argued that the wife had been a tenant in 2009.
In response to the wife’s claim for unjust enrichment for the pre-marriage cohabitation period, the husband sought to argue that the wife’s contributions were a trade off for not paying rent and having the husband pay the mortgage and other carrying costs of the home.
The Justice found that the evidence strongly indicated that the parties commenced cohabitation in 2009, when the wife relocated to the husband's condominium, rather than in 2013, when they purchased an acreage together and became engaged. Other evidence in support of a 2009 cohabitation date was they shared household responsibilities, travelled together, purchased two dogs, obtained matching tattoos, and named each other as beneficiaries of their pension and life insurance plans. The court found that the husband’s argument that the wife was only a tenant and a friend with benefits during 2009 was dismissed. The court took time to note that the husband had never collected rent from her, and the rental documents he referenced were not convincing if not fraudulent.
The Justice also dismissed the husband's assertion that the wife's claim of unjust enrichment should be nullified by considering the benefits she received from not paying rent and the husband's coverage of mortgage and other carrying costs for their residences prior to marriage. In making this decision, the Justice noted that the “mutual conferral of benefits will not by itself deprive a party of an unjust enrichment [claim]."" In this instance, the wife's testimony unequivocally demonstrated that her contributions and the consequent enrichment to the husband significantly beyond the mutual benefits. The parties engaged in a combined family enterprise, with the wife's contributions closely associated with revenue creation and asset accumulation during their cohabitation.
Overall, the court found in favor of the wife and awarded her significant financial compensation. The court found that the wife provided significant unpaid services to the husband's businesses and properties during their cohabitation. The court awarded the wife $45,000 in compensation for unjust enrichment. The court divided the matrimonial property, including the family home, vehicles, and financial assets. The husband was ordered to pay the wife an equalization payment of $95,696.26 and additional amounts for rental income and RRSP benefits.
Family property and cohabitation periods can be a key element in many family law cases. For more information, consider setting up a free consultation. You can start the process by filling out the form here.