"conjugal" (is it possible to maintain separate residences?), thereis a significant body of Canadian jurisprudence that adopts a multifactoral test to determine whether a relationship is"conjugal."(23) There must be a significant amount of shared living,(24) and a high level of social and emotional commitment; asexual relationship is very common aspect of a conjugal relationship. Some degree of shared living expenses and a degree ofeconomic interdependence is an aspect of a conjugal relationship, though the nature of this varies greatly.To date, the primary motivation for considering the enactment of RDP legislation in Canada (and other countries) has beenproviding recognition for same sex relationships, but there is some interest in defining the RDP to permit registration ofnon-conjugal domestic relationships. At least some countries that have RDP's, such as the Netherlands, do not restrict theRDP to same sex "conjugal" partners. There are practical, privacy and equity arguments that favour not limiting the right toenter an RDP to those in same sex or heterosexual "conjugal relationships." Further, the concept of the RDP may be morelikely to gain legislative support if it is not limited to those in same sex conjugal relationships. Indeed it may be argued that theonly (and certainly the main) reason that politicians have for expanding the concept of the RDP to include non-conjugaldomestic partners is to allow recognition of same sex relationships without directly recognizing them. If there is to be some societal and legal recognition to those who chose to enter a "domestic partnership" and undertakemutual "spouse- like" obligations, why should individuals be denied this benefit because they do not have a particular kind ofemotional commitment or do not have a sexual relationship? If individuals are prepared to undertake the "spouse-like" legalcommitments of an RDP, they should be able to do so. As with other types of family obligations...
