Consistent Cohabitation Reaffirmed as Foundational Requirement for “AIP” status

In a recent King’s Bench decision, Abbott v. Mamdani 2024 ABKB 342 Justice Gaston rejected a request for a declaration of adult interdependent partnership between the parties. Despite both parties acknowledging that their relationship was exclusive and committed for four years, Justice Gaston determined that the applicant, girlfriend, did not meet the criteria of "living with" the respondent, boyfriend, as defined by section 3(1)(a) of the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act.

During the course of the relationship, the boyfriend, who was financially prosperous, granted the applicant the opportunity to indulge in his extravagant way of life, which encompassed generous gifts, exotic travel, and extravagant dining experiences and social gatherings, including hosting them at his residence. During a certain period of their connection, he also offered financial assistance to the girlfriend following after she was fired from her job as a lawyer. Nevertheless, the parties resided in different homes. Despite frequently staying at the boyfriend's residence, the girlfriend never received security clearance to the boyfriend’s residence and did not reside in the home the absence of the boyfriend. Neither party provided financial support or assisted in the upkeep of the other party’s home(s).

Justice Gaston examined legal precedents to determine if the condition stated in section 3(1)(a) (which requires the parties to have "cohabitated" for a duration of three years) may be satisfied even if the parties have lived in separate dwellings. She determined that although there have been instances where individuals were considered AIPs even if they did not cohabit, those instances mostly included couples who had a shared intention to live together but were unable to do so due to external factors. Justice Gaston then determined that the criterion for determining whether a couple had "cohabitated with each other" for the purposes of section 3(1)(a) is:

1) did the parties cohabit in the same residence for a continuous three-year period; and
2) if not, did the parties have a mutual intention to cohabit in the same residence for a continuous period which period was interrupted by external circumstances such as employment, academic, financial or health care obligations or requirements?

Based on the communications between the parties, it is clear that they never actually lived together or moved in together, despite the fact that it was seen as a natural evolution in their relationship. As a result, there was no mutual intention to cohabit, and therefore, the criteria for "living together" was not fulfilled.

This decision reaffirms the rules pertaining to adult interdependent partnerships.

If you have questions or concerns about whether your relationship meets the test of adult interdependent partnership, reach out to us to set up a free consultation. For more info visit our Contact Us page.