The rights and obligations of common-law partners in Quebec differ from those in other provinces. While waiting for a modification to the Quebec Civil Code, the courts seem to compensate for this legal gap.
The rights and obligations of common-law partners in Quebec differ from those in other provinces, as confirmed by the "Eric v. Lola" judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. Pending an amendment to the Quebec Civil Code, the courts appear to be filling this legal gap.
Therefore, Madame, after giving up her career, "dedicates 22 years of her life to the well-being of her common-law partner and their 4 children." Following Monsieur's departure for a new flame, Madame turns to the Court* and requests $1,000,000 for unjust enrichment. She also withdraws her request for the division of the family patrimony and her request for spousal support following the judgment rendered in the case "Eric v. Lola".
The court mentions that this case is "an opportunity for the Court to remind that Quebec civil law grants rights to domestic service providers in the context of a common-law union", especially since the Supreme Court has already ruled that these activities can be considered in a claim for unjust enrichment. The court, relying on the so-called "accumulated value" method, orders Monsieur to pay Madame the sum of $398,000. This method does not result in an "equal sharing presumption, as advocated by legislative texts relating to matrimonial regimes". Instead, it aims to assess the pecuniary compensation owed to Madame by determining her proportional contribution to the accumulation of Monsieur's wealth.
Even though the Quebec Civil Code does not directly regulate the relationships between common-law partners, the courts, out of a concern for natural justice and perhaps equity, extensively draw from the Quebec Civil Code to address certain injustices.
*Court of Appeal (200-09-007888-123)
