Part 1 of 2: The Status — How You Get It, and How You Lose It

Most Albertans still say “common law.” The legislature stopped using that language more than twenty years ago.

Since 1 June 2003, the relationship Alberta law recognizes outside marriage is the adult interdependent relationship, and the person you are in it with is your adult interdependent partner — an AIP. The governing statute is the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act, SA 2002, c A-4.5 (“AIRA”).

This is not a change in vocabulary. AIP status carries real consequences for property, support, and — the subject of Part 2 of this series — your estate. And the thing that catches people out is this: you can acquire the status without signing anything, without a ceremony, and without ever intending it. There is no registry to check, no certificate to produce, and no requirement that you even know the legislation exists.

This post deals with one question only: who is an adult interdependent partner, and when does that stop being true? Part 2 takes up what it means when one of you dies.

The three routes into the status

Under AIRA s 3(1), you are another person’s AIP if you have lived with them in a relationship of interdependence:

Route	Requirement
(a)(i) — Time	Lived together in a relationship of interdependence for a continuous period of not less than three years
(a)(ii) — Child	Lived together in a relationship of interdependence of some permanence, where there is a child of the relationship by birth or adoption (no three-year requirement)
(b) — Agreement	Entered into an adult interdependent partner agreement under s 7

Two of those three routes require no document and no deliberate act. They happen to you.

The Act reaches backwards. Section 2 provides that AIRA applies to adult interdependent relationships arising before or after it came into force. A relationship that predates 2003 is not grandfathered out.

What is a “relationship of interdependence”?

This is the engine of the whole scheme, and it is defined in s 1(1)(f): a relationship outside marriage in which any two persons

share one another’s lives,
are emotionally committed to one another, and
function as an economic and domestic unit.

All three limbs must be met.

Section 1(2) then sets out the factors a court weighs in deciding whether two people function as an economic and domestic unit, taking all the circumstances into account:

whether or not the persons have a conjugal relationship;
the degree of exclusivity of the relationship;
the persons’ conduct and habits in respect of household activities and living arrangements;
the degree to which they hold themselves out to others as an economic and domestic unit;
the degree to which they formalize their legal obligations, intentions, and responsibilities toward one another;
the extent of direct and indirect contributions to each other or to their mutual well-being;
the degree of financial dependence or interdependence and any arrangements for financial support;
the care and support of children; and
the ownership, use, and acquisition of property.

Read the first factor again. Whether the relationship is conjugal is one factor among many — not a threshold requirement. Alberta’s definition is deliberately broader than “common law” as most people understand it. Two long-time friends sharing a household, or an aunt and a nephew, can in principle satisfy the test.

That breadth was intentional. It is also the reason so many Albertans are in this status without knowing it.

What does “living with” actually mean?

The Act says “lived with” and “continuous period.” Neither phrase is defined, and the case law has moved considerably.

The early approach was strict. In Henschel Estate (Re), 2008 ABQB 406, the Court treated “living together” as requiring the parties to be under the same roof.

The Court has since taken a more flexible view — and, notably, the leading cases are estate cases, decided after one party had died and could no longer give evidence:

Tait v Westphal, 2013 ABQB 668 (also cited as Racz Estate (Re)): maintaining separate houses did not preclude a finding of adult interdependent partnership.
Martin v Riley, 2014 ABQB 725 (also cited as Riley Estate (Re)): the parties cohabited for 22 years, after which the deceased built a separate residence. He contributed to the upkeep of both homes, continued to spend several nights a week at the applicant’s home until his death, and they continued to hold themselves out as a couple. The Court distinguished Henschel Estate and found they had been AIPs, for a continuous period of not less than three years, despite maintaining separate residences.
Rockey v Hartwell, 2016 ABQB 438: the parties lived apart for much of an eight-year relationship while one attended university in another city.
Wright v Lemoine, 2017 ABQB 395: the Court considered intermittent cohabitation across trailers, hotels, and a party’s home over a four-year relationship.

The practical takeaway: separate addresses do not settle the question. Neither does a rocky patch. Whether you are in an adult interdependent relationship is a fact-specific determination, made after the fact, on a full record, by a judge. Cases in this area turn on evidence, and the outcomes are genuinely hard to predict.

The restrictions and exclusions

Four limits matter.

(a) Relatives — by agreement only

Persons related to each other by blood or adoption may become AIPs of each other only by entering into an adult interdependent partner agreement under s 7 (s 3(2)). They cannot drift into the status through three years of cohabitation, no matter how interdependent the household.

A relationship of interdependence may exist between related persons — except where one of them is a minor (s 4(1)).

(b) Paid caregivers are out

Section 4(2): no relationship of interdependence exists between two persons where one provides the other with domestic support and personal care for a fee or other consideration, or on behalf of another person or organization, including a government.

This is the provision that keeps a live-in caregiver, a paid attendant, or a placement arranged through a public program from becoming an AIP by operation of time.

(c) One at a time

Section 5(1) permits only one AIP at any given time.

(d) Marriage blocks it — but only while you live together

Section 5(2): a married person cannot become an AIP while living with his or her spouse.

The Court of Appeal applied that provision strictly in Mitchell v Reykdal, 2022 ABCA 105, reversing 2021 ABQB 301. A man maintained a 17-year relationship with one woman while remaining married to, and living with, his wife of nearly 30 years. The trial judge undertook a comparative analysis of whom he was “living with” more, and found the second woman was his AIP. The Court of Appeal held that was a palpable and overriding error: once s 5(2) is engaged, there is no room for nuance, or “the section might never be applied.” The appellant had interdependent relationships with two women at the same time, and s 5(2) provides that in such a situation no adult interdependent relationship could exist in law. The Court acknowledged that he had deceived both women “in the most selfish and intimate way,” and that the legislation offers no remedy.

The corollary is the one that matters for planning. Section 5(2) blocks AIP status only while the married person is living with their spouse. A person who is separated but not divorced can therefore acquire an AIP while remaining legally married — leaving two people with claims. Part 2 shows what that does to an estate.

The adult interdependent partner agreement

If routes (a)(i) and (a)(ii) happen to you, route (b) is the one you choose.

Section 7(1): any two persons who are living together, or intend to live together, in a relationship of interdependence may enter into an adult interdependent partner agreement in the form provided for by the regulations. Note the words “intend to live together” — the agreement can precede cohabitation, and status attaches immediately. There is no waiting period.

Section 7(2) disqualifies a person from entering an agreement if the person:

(a) is a party to an existing adult interdependent partner agreement;
(b) is married; or
(c) is a minor, unless (i) the minor is at least 16 years of age, and (ii) the minor’s guardians have given their prior written consent.

The prescribed form is set out in the Schedule to the Adult Interdependent Partner Agreement Regulation, Alta Reg 66/2011 (s 1). The Schedule includes a notice that the guardians of any partner under 18 must sign to indicate consent, and that a person under 18 may not enter an agreement with someone related to them by blood or adoption. The form records that the parties understand they will acquire all the benefits and obligations of adult interdependent partners under Alberta law, and that the agreement expires if they become former AIPs.

Getting it wrong has teeth. Section 8 sets out when an agreement is invalid — including where the parties were neither living together nor intending to live together in a relationship of interdependence when the agreement was entered into (s 8(1)(c)), or where one of the parties was prohibited by s 7(2) from entering it (s 8(1)(d)). A person who purports to enter an agreement while prohibited from doing so, or who induces another to enter one in those circumstances, is liable in damages for the other party’s pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss and costs (s 8(2)). A person who uses an agreement they know to be invalid to claim AIP status against a third party is liable for that third party’s pecuniary loss and costs (s 8(3)). And s 9 imposes damages on anyone who alleges an adult interdependent relationship knowing it does not exist, to compensate any person who relied on the claim.

Sections 8(3) and 9 exist for a reason. Estates are exactly the context in which someone asserts a relationship to a third party who then acts on it.

There is no registry — and the onus falls on the survivor

Alberta maintains no register of adult interdependent relationships. Even signed agreements are private documents; there is nowhere to file them and nowhere to search.

Section 11 places the onus on the person alleging the relationship: a person who alleges in a court proceeding that the person is in or was in an adult interdependent relationship has the onus of proving the existence of the relationship.

In life, that means an alleged partner must prove their case. On death, it means your personal representative may find themselves litigating status against a claimant — with no document to check and one of the two participants unavailable to testify. That is precisely what happened in Martin v Riley and Tait v Westphal.

How the relationship ends

Under s 10(1), a person becomes a former AIP on the earliest of:

Written agreement — the partners enter a written agreement providing evidence that they intend to live separate and apart without the possibility of reconciliation;
One year apart — the partners live separate and apart for more than one year and one or both intend that the relationship not continue;
Marriage — the partners marry each other, or one of them marries a third party;
New agreement — in the case of a partner under s 3(1)(a), that partner enters an AIP agreement with a third party; or
Declaration of irreconcilability — one or both obtain a declaration under s 83 of the Family Law Act.

Two mechanics on the one-year clock (s 10(2)): it is not interrupted merely because a partner becomes incapable of forming the intention to live separate and apart, and it is not interrupted by a single period of not more than 90 days of resumed cohabitation with reconciliation as its primary purpose.

An AIP agreement expires when the parties become former AIPs (s 10(3)).

What is not on that list

Death. Section 10 says nothing about it — because the status is a live question at the moment of death, which is exactly why it matters to an estate.

Separation, by itself. This is the single most important point in this post. If you separate today with nothing in writing, your partner remains your AIP at law for one year and a day. Everything in Part 2 — intestacy entitlement, the gift under your will, executorship, the right to occupy your home — applies to them throughout that window.

A signed written agreement under s 10(1)(a) closes the window immediately. Waiting does not.

What AIP status is not

It is not a marriage. It never converts to one, no matter how long it lasts.
It does not carry the Dower Act. Dower protection — the veto over disposition of the homestead, and the life estate in it on death — applies to married spouses only (Dower Act, RSA 2000, c D-15). The Alberta Law Reform Institute has recommended extending it to adult interdependent partners; as of the date of this article that recommendation has not been enacted.
It does not give a right to change your surname to your partner’s.
It does not automatically make you a “common-law partner” for federal purposes. The Income Tax Act uses its own test, turning on a 12-month conjugal relationship or shared parenthood. An AIP — particularly a non-conjugal one — may not qualify. That has consequences for rollovers, registered plans, and CPP. Confirm the tax analysis with your accountant; it does not follow from AIP status.

Coming in Part 2: How does this affect your estate?

Status is only the threshold question. The consequences arrive on death:

none of the above touches your beneficiary designations.
an AIP inherits on an intestacy — including, in some cases, splitting the estate with a surviving spouse;
an AIP can bring a family maintenance and support claim against your estate, and you cannot draft around it;
an AIP has a 90-day right to occupy your home at your estate’s expense, even if they are not on title;
entering the relationship does not revoke your will — but ending it revokes the gift, on a clock you may not be watching; and

And you cannot contract out of the status itself. Two people cannot sign a document declaring that they are not in an adult interdependent relationship and thereby make it so; s 3 operates on the facts. What you can do is contract out of much of what flows from the status — through a cohabitation agreement, a properly executed property agreement, and a current will. That is a drafting exercise, and it works. Denial is not.