Ontario Common-Law Property Claims

 

Ontario Common-Law Property Claims: Stacey v. Vey

When a common-law relationship ends, the question that keeps people awake is often direct: “Do I have a right to the home, the equity, or the money I contributed?” In Ontario, the answer is rarely found in a single conversation, a single payment, or simply in how long a couple lived together. It depends on the legal ownership of the property, what the parties actually agreed to, the financial record, and—where an equitable claim is made—whether the evidence proves the legal requirements.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario’s August 2026 decision in Stacey v. Vey is a useful and careful reminder of that reality. The case arose from a short common-law relationship and a dispute over proceeds from the sale of a jointly purchased home. The Court allowed the appeal, dismissed the property application, and directed that 90% of the sale proceeds be paid to the party holding the registered 90% interest.

The result is important, but so is the Court’s reasoning. Stacey v. Vey does not say that a common-law partner can never advance an unjust enrichment claim. Nor does it say that home improvements, mortgage liability, or household contributions are irrelevant. Instead, it confirms that a common-law property claim in Ontario is evidence-driven. A claimant must establish the elements of the claim they are making, and a court will examine the relationship as it was actually lived—not as either person later hoped it would be characterized.

For separating couples, the decision underscores the value of clear written arrangements, accurate records, and early legal advice when title, refinancing, contributions, or property-sale proceeds are in dispute.

The starting point: common-law couples do not have automatic property division

A persistent misunderstanding is that living together for a certain number of years automatically creates the same property-division rights as marriage. That is not the general rule in Ontario. The law explains that common-law couples are not legally required to divide property acquired while living together, although a person who contributed to property owned by the other partner may, depending on the circumstances, seek recovery of that contribution.

That distinction matters. The equalization regime under Ontario’s Family Law Act is a statutory regime for spouses as defined in that Act’s property provisions; it should not be casually assumed to resolve a common-law property dispute. At the same time, a common-law partner may have rights flowing from legal title, a domestic contract, a trust claim, unjust enrichment, or another recognized legal basis. The proper analysis depends on the facts and the remedy sought.

In everyday language, common-law spouse house rights in Ontario are not determined by a slogan. They require attention to the deed or registered title, the mortgage, the source of the down payment, the parties’ agreements, payments made, renovations, and the overall financial arrangement.

What happened in Stacey v. Vey?

The parties were in a common-law relationship for approximately three and a half years. They did not marry, had no children together, and did not enter into a cohabitation agreement. Before purchasing a home together in Alliston, they had lived in a home that Mr. Vey had owned for years.

When they bought the Alliston property, the parties executed a written agreement providing that they would hold it as tenants in common, with a 90/10 ownership split in Mr. Vey’s favour. Proceeds from the sale of Mr. Vey’s earlier home were used to purchase the new property. The parties also had a joint mortgage, and Ms. Stacey made some contributions connected to the homes, including work and expenses.

Later, they discussed changing the ownership split to 59/41 in Mr. Vey’s favour. However, no replacement agreement was signed, and no change in the ownership interest was registered. The property was eventually sold for $752,000—approximately $150,000 less than its $901,000 purchase price—with net sale proceeds of $328,991.40.

At trial, the judge found unjust enrichment and a joint family venture, and awarded Ms. Stacey 41% of the net proceeds. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reached the opposite conclusion. It held that the evidence did not reasonably support enrichment and corresponding deprivation, that the requirements of a joint family venture were not established, and that there was no evidence that the written 90/10 ownership arrangement had been changed.

 

Issue	Court of Appeal’s conclusion	Why it mattered
Unjust enrichment	Not established on this record	The property’s value and Mr. Vey’s net worth had declined; the Court found no enrichment from the sale, and noted that Ms. Stacey had received a 10% interest without contributing to the purchase price.
Joint family venture	Not established	The evidence did not show the required mutual, cooperative economic integration.
Proposed 59/41 split	Not proven as a changed agreement	The original 90/10 agreement was signed and registered; the later change was discussed but never signed or registered.
Result	Appeal allowed	The application was dismissed, and 90% of the proceeds were to be remitted to Mr. Vey.

Why the unjust enrichment claim did not succeed

An unjust enrichment claim in Ontario requires more than showing that one partner worked hard, paid some expenses, or expected that the relationship would lead to a different financial outcome. The party advancing the claim must establish three components: that the other party was enriched, that the claimant suffered a corresponding deprivation, and that there was no juristic reason for the enrichment.

The phrase “corresponding deprivation” is significant. The claimant’s loss must be connected to the other party’s gain. In domestic cases, the analysis can be complicated because partners often exchange benefits: one may contribute money, another may make mortgage payments, and both may receive housing or other support. Courts do not simply total one person’s efforts in isolation. They must assess the actual legal and financial circumstances.

In Stacey v. Vey, the claim concerned the sale proceeds of the Alliston property. The Court of Appeal focused on the fact that the property had sold at a substantial loss. In those circumstances, it concluded that Mr. Vey had not been enriched by the sale. It also concluded that the evidence of Ms. Stacey’s contributions to the property was limited and that her 10% interest compensated her for the contributions identified on the record.

This is not a rule that a falling housing market defeats every claim. It is a finding tied to the evidence in this case. A different record—for example, one involving a proven contribution to acquiring, preserving, maintaining, or improving a property, and an identifiable retained benefit—may call for a different analysis. The point is that a court requires proof of the actual benefit allegedly retained and the loss said to correspond with it.

What is a joint family venture in Ontario?

People searching for a joint family venture in Ontario are often looking for a straightforward formula. The law is more nuanced. In Kerr v. Baranow, the Supreme Court of Canada explained that a joint family venture is a fact-specific inquiry. Relevant considerations include mutual effort, economic integration, actual intent, and priority of the family. There is no presumption that common-law partners were engaged in a joint family venture simply because they lived together.

The Court of Appeal applied those principles in Stacey v. Vey. It emphasized the short and unstable relationship, the absence of children or other common family obligations, significant financial independence, separated income, no common savings pool, no evidence of future planning, and no joint interest beyond the property in question. In the Court’s view, those findings did not support the necessary mutual, cooperative economic integration.

A joint bank account alone is therefore not decisive. Neither is joint responsibility for a mortgage, a shared credit card, or help with renovations. Those facts can be relevant, but their weight depends on context. Were the couple making long-term financial decisions together? Did they pool income? Did one person make career or financial sacrifices for the family unit? Did their conduct show an intention to operate as an integrated economic partnership? The answers must come from reliable evidence, not assumptions made after separation.

“A joint family venture can only be identified by the court when its existence, in fact, is well grounded in the evidence.” — Kerr v. Baranow, as applied in Stacey v. Vey.

Registered title and informal discussions are not the same thing

One of the most practical lessons from the decision concerns ownership arrangements. The parties had a signed, registered 90/10 tenants-in-common agreement. They later discussed a 59/41 division, but no new agreement was signed, and no ownership change was registered. The Court held that there was no evidence that the original agreement had been changed.

That does not mean every ownership question can be answered merely by reading title. Equitable claims can arise in appropriate cases, and a domestic contract may have its own terms. But Stacey v. Vey shows the risk in relying on an unfinished arrangement. A text message, a preliminary discussion, or an appointment that never results in signed documents may be important evidence, but it is not automatically a legally effective change in property interests.

For couples purchasing a home as tenants in common in Ontario, the prudent approach is to ensure that the percentage interests, down-payment credits, mortgage obligations, responsibility for improvements, and what happens on separation or sale are recorded clearly. If circumstances change after refinancing or a major contribution, the documents should be reviewed and, where appropriate, formally updated with legal advice.

Practical steps after a common-law separation involving a home

A property dispute is easier to assess when the financial evidence is preserved early. This is not about creating a paper trail after the fact; it is about safeguarding records that already exist and obtaining an informed view of the legal issues.

Document or record	Why it may be relevant
Transfer/deed and parcel register	Helps establish legal ownership and the form of title.
Cohabitation, separation, or other written agreement	May address ownership, contributions, debt, and remedies on separation.
Mortgage and refinancing documents	May clarify who borrowed, assumed liability, or changed financial obligations.
Down-payment and closing records	May help identify the source of purchase funds and agreed contributions.
Bank, credit-card, and line-of-credit statements	May help trace payments for the home, improvements, and household expenses.
Invoices, permits, photos, and contractor records	May help prove the nature, cost, and timing of renovation or maintenance work.
Relevant communications	May help explain an alleged agreement, but should be assessed alongside the complete record.

The records do not decide the case by themselves. Their significance depends on the claim, the overall relationship, and the competing evidence. Still, organized documentation can help a lawyer identify whether the issue is primarily one of title, contract, unjust enrichment, trust, debt, or some combination of these.

What this decision does—and does not—mean for common-law couples

The enduring message from Stacey v. Vey is not that one partner’s contribution is unimportant. It is that courts will carefully distinguish between contributions that may support a legal remedy and understandable expectations that do not meet the legal test on the evidence.

The decision also does not convert a 90/10 title arrangement into a universal answer for every common-law property dispute. Different facts can matter greatly. A longer relationship, substantial pooling of finances, shared children, deliberate reliance on the relationship, a written agreement, evidence of a completed ownership change, or a demonstrable connection between a person’s contribution and retained wealth may all affect the analysis.

For those planning to live together, a cohabitation agreement in Ontario can provide a clearer framework for property, debt, support, and what will happen if the relationship ends. The Ontario law notes that common-law couples may enter into a cohabitation agreement or separation agreement to set out their property rights, and recommends that each person obtain independent legal advice and exchange financial information before signing.

For those who have already separated, the immediate task is usually to pause, preserve records, and obtain advice tailored to the property and financial facts. A rushed agreement or an assumption that “we were common-law, so everything is automatically split” can create avoidable uncertainty.

A careful next step

If you are separating from a common-law partner and there is a dispute about a house, sale proceeds, renovations, mortgage debt, or a claimed share of property, the facts need to be reviewed as a whole. Contact IQBAL LAW to arrange a confidential consultation about your Ontario family-law matter. A legal review can help identify the documents to preserve, the questions that need answers, and the options that may be available on your facts.

 

Questions people commonly ask

Does living together for three years mean we split everything 50/50 in Ontario?

No automatic 50/50 property division follows simply from a common-law relationship. Ontario’s public guidance states that common-law couples are not legally required to divide property acquired while they lived together. Property rights may nevertheless arise from title, agreement, or a properly established legal claim.

Can I make an unjust enrichment claim if I paid for renovations to my partner’s home?

Possibly, but the outcome depends on the evidence and the legal test. A court will consider whether the other person was enriched, whether you suffered a corresponding deprivation, and whether there was no juristic reason for the benefit to be retained. Renovation receipts, proof of payment, the nature of the work, title, and the overall arrangement can be important.

Does being on a joint mortgage make me an owner of the house?

Mortgage liability and legal ownership are related but distinct questions. A joint mortgage may be relevant evidence in a dispute, but ownership interests must be assessed through the actual title, agreements, and applicable legal principles. In Stacey v. Vey, the parties’ joint mortgage did not establish that the registered 90/10 ownership agreement had become 59/41.

What if we discussed changing the ownership percentages but never signed anything?

The discussion may be relevant, but it should not be treated as a substitute for completed legal documentation. In Stacey v. Vey, the Court found no evidence that the signed and registered 90/10 agreement had been changed where the later 59/41 proposal was never signed or registered.

 

This article is provided for general information only. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Property, support, limitation, title, and court-procedure issues are fact-specific. Obtain advice from a lawyer about your own circumstances before relying on this information.