Trevor Todd and Jackson Todd have over a  combined sixty years experience in handling estate disputes including whether or not parties were in a marriage like relationship for two years.

In Chan v Tran 2025 BCSC 1308 the Court ruled that they were not in a marriage like relationship for over two years and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim re same.

FACTS

The claimant, Ms. Chan, says she and the respondent, Mr. Tran, had a whirlwind romance. She contends that their relationship had the qualities of a “marriage-like” relationship from its commencement on July 7, 2013, and remained that way until the date of their separation on November 15, 2019. Pursuant to the FLA, Ms. Chan seeks equal division of family property and debt including several real properties and business interests held in the name of the respondent. She also seeks spousal support.

[3]            Ms. Chan also seeks an exclusion under the FLA with respect to gifts given to her by the respondent including $61,000 she says he gifted her to purchase a townhouse on MacPherson Avenue in Burnaby (the “MacPherson Property”) as well as the engagement ring he gave her in February 2019.

[4]            The respondent, Mr. Tran, admits that his relationship with Ms. Chan began in July 2013 but says that they did not begin to live together as spouses until July 2019, a state that lasted for only five months before their separation on November 15, 2019. Mr. Tran opposes any division of property and the claim for spousal support on the basis that the parties were never spouses for the purposes of the FLA. If the court finds that there was a marriage-like relationship, Mr. Tran says that all of properties at issue, except the MacPherson Property, are beneficially owned by his parents and are, accordingly, excluded property not subject to division under the FLA.

[5]            The respondents by counterclaim are members of Mr. Tran’s family, namely his father, Truong Tien Tran; mother, Nu Thi Pham; brother, David Anh Tran; sister, Nga Thi Tran; and brother-in-law, The Anh Nguyen. To avoid any confusion, I will refer to the respondent by his first and last name. I intend no disrespect in doing so. If I conclude that the parties were spouses as defined by the FLA, the respondents by counterclaim seek an order that Tien Tran holds a portion of his interest in real properties in his name in trust for them, and Tien Tran seeks an order that these properties be excluded from the division of family assets.

[6]            The parties have no children together.

[7]            Regardless of whether the court concludes that the parties are spouses, Mr. Tran claims that Ms. Chan has been unjustly enriched in respect of two assets, the MacPherson Property, and a diamond engagement ring. He seeks a declaration that he holds a 50% interest in the MacPherson Property and an order for return of the ring.

[8]            There is no dispute that the parties were in a romantic, sexual, and exclusive relationship and that they became engaged in February 2019. There is also no dispute that the relationship ended in November 2019. Each party gave diametrically opposed evidence about the nature of the relationship leading up to the engagement and the periods of time in which they resided in the same residence.

[9]            The key issue before the court is whether the parties’ relationship was marriage-like. Given the stark difference between the evidence of the parties in this regard, my assessment of credibility plays a key role in resolving this question.

The court found the evidence of Mr. Tran to be more credible than the plaintiff.

 

THE LAW

 

The principles to be applied to a determination of whether there is a marriage-like relationship between parties are well-established. In articulating these principles, I can do no better than to re-produce the recent comprehensive summary of these principles by Justice Brongers in Bellerose v. Reda, 2023 BCSC 748:

[48]      The concept of a “marriage-like relationship” has been the subject of considerable jurisprudential consideration. Many of these authorities were brought to my attention by the parties. I found the most helpful one to be the relatively recent decision of Justice E. McDonald in Armstrong v. Scholz, 2022 BCSC 863. Paragraphs 29 to 35 of her reasons contain a thorough review of several of the leading cases that have discussed the principles and approach to be applied when deciding whether two persons have been in a marriage-like relationship. These principles can be summarized as follows:

1. a)The burden is on the claimant to prove that they meet the definition of “spouse”. The standard is on a balance of probabilities (Voth v. Martin, 2019 BCSC 834 at para. 8, citing H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53 at para. 49).
2. b)Section 3 of the Act imposes both a two-year continuous “cohabitation requirement”, and a marriage-like “relationship requirement”. The cohabitation requirement is approached flexibly and may be satisfied even if the parties may have lived for extended periods at different locations (Hu v. Lee, 2022 BCSC 56 at paras. 41–42; Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78 at paras. 22–36).
3. c)The determination of whether a relationship was marriage-like requires a holistic approach in which all of the relevant factors are considered and weighed, but none are treated as being determinative of the question (Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586 at para. 62).
4. d)While a “checklist” approach should not be employed, it can be helpful to consider the presence or absence of commonly accepted indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society, at a given point in time, associates with a marital relationship (Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492 at para. 25).
5. e)Such indicators of a marriage-like relationship may include: (1) shared shelter; (2) sexual and personal behaviour; (3) services; (4) social activities; (5) economic support and children; and (6) societal perception of the couple ( v. H., 1999 CanLII 686 (S.C.C), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3 at para. 59; citing Molodowich v. Penttinen (1980), 1980 CanLII 1537 (O.N.S.C.) at para. 16 – these are sometimes referred to as the “Molodowich factors”).
6. f)   Evidence of the subjective intentions of the parties is important to the determination of whether the relationship was marriage-like. However, this evidence must be tested against objective evidence of their lifestyle and interactions, which will provide direct guidance on the nature of the relationship (Dey v. Blackett, 2018 BCSC 244 at para. 195).
7. g)A person is either a “spouse” or is not. There is no middle ground. People may live together interdependently and yet fail to establish that they developed the kind of psychological and emotional union associated with marriage (F.M. v. G.L.M., 2018 BCSC 815 at para. 10).
8. h)A marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. However, it must be borne in mind that people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails (Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200 at para. 143).

[49]      Also worth mentioning are two recent “marriage-like relationship” decisions issued last year by our Court of Appeal, albeit in the context of estate litigation: Coad v. Lariviere, 2022 BCCA 222 at para. 127; and Jones v. Davidson, 2022 BCCA 31 at paras. 21–24. They effectively confirm that there is no specific definition of whether marriage-like relationships exist. In particular, such relationships are not simply defined by financial dependence, sexual relationships, or the mingling of property and finances. In sum, their existence ought not to be determined through a formulaic “checklist” approach, but rather through a contextual and holistic examination of all of the relevant aspects of the parties’ relationship.