hat in certain circumstances there is a need for ascription to "spousalstatus" for those who have not "formalized" their conjugal relationships. "Conjugal" relationships, for certain purposes, aredeemed to have the "spousal status," even though the parties have not formalized the relationship by entering into marriage.The first steps towards ascription for heterosexual partners in Canada were taken in the 1970's, while for same sex partnerssuch recognition only began in the 1990's.If RDP legislation is enacted, ascription should apply for those who cohabit in a conjugal relationship but do not enter aRDP. However, in my view, ascription should not fully equate formal and informal conjugal relationships, provided thatthose in an informal relationship had the legal option of formalizing their relationship. Further, ascription should not beextended to non-conjugal situations in which adults reside together, even if it is a relationship where there is significanteconomic interdependence.For those in non-registered heterosexual conjugal relationships, there are strong arguments for significant but not necessarilycomplete ascription of spousal status after a significant period of cohabitation (say three years) or there is a child of therelationship. For heterosexual conjugal couples, Canadian courts have rejected the argument that since there was a "choice"not to marry (or contract), there should be no rights or obligations. There is too much potential for one party (usually thewealthier or more powerful partner i.e. often the man) to want the benefits of the relationship, and then if it ends, to want todeny any responsibility for dependencies that may have arisen. Accordingly the courts and legislatures have ascribed status,for example for a range of purposes of spousal support(31) and dependent's relief. Ascription for informal conjugal relationships should be approached on an issue-by-issue basis, preferably by the legislature,but if neces...
