The Cohabitation Agreement That Outlasted Its Author

The situation

Piotr, an investment advisor, moved in with Marek fourteen years ago. Marek had already retired from running a manufacturing business he built over three decades, and by the time the two men set up a household together in Ottawa, his estate consisted mostly of investment accounts and the proceeds from selling that business years earlier. Two years into living together, on the advice of Marek's accountant, the couple signed a cohabitation agreement — a contract between common-law partners that sets out how property and support would be handled if the relationship ended, whether by separation or death.

The agreement was straightforward in what it did: it kept Marek's pre-existing wealth out of any future property claim by Piotr, and in exchange guaranteed Piotr a fixed settlement — set at $400,000 in the original document — if the relationship ended for any reason after five years together. Both men had their own lawyers review it. Both exchanged sworn financial disclosure statements listing their assets and debts at the time. The agreement sat in a drawer for over a decade while the relationship continued and Marek's investments grew.

Neither man expected to need it soon. Marek was in good health when they signed, and the agreement was treated more as sensible housekeeping than as a document either of them thought seriously about again. Piotr kept his own copy filed with his tax records; Marek's went into the same drawer as his will. For twelve years it did exactly what a well-drafted contract is supposed to do — nothing at all, because there was no dispute to resolve.

The challenge

Marek died last year after a short illness, with an estate valued at roughly $3.4 million — nearly double what it had been worth when the agreement was signed. Under Ontario law, a cohabitation agreement can specify what a surviving common-law partner receives from an estate, and Marek's will had been drafted to match the agreement: Piotr would receive the $400,000 settlement, and the balance of the estate would pass to Marek's adult daughter, Genevieve, from an earlier marriage.

Genevieve, acting as the estate's trustee, did not dispute that the agreement existed. She disputed that it should still control. Her position, put to Piotr through an estate lawyer, was that the agreement was drafted for a much smaller estate and had never been updated to reflect how much the investment accounts had grown — and that as a common-law spouse who had lived with Marek for twelve years, Piotr was entitled to bring a dependant's support claim under Ontario's estate law for a share closer to what a spouse would typically receive, regardless of what the contract said. She also raised, more pointedly, whether Piotr had really understood what he was signing when the agreement was drafted, given that Marek's accountant had been the one who arranged it.

For Piotr, the stakes were significant. If the agreement were set aside or found unenforceable, he would have to bring a formal application in the Superior Court seeking support from the estate — a process that could take a year or more, cost far more in the meantime than the $400,000 already promised to him, and produce an uncertain result. If it held, he would receive what he and Marek had agreed to, without a courtroom.

What we did

1. Pulled the original file, not just the signed copy. We requested the complete record from the lawyer who had drafted the agreement twelve years earlier: the certificates of independent legal advice signed by both men's own lawyers, the sworn financial disclosure statements exchanged before signing, and the drafting correspondence showing the terms had gone back and forth before either man signed. A domestic contract in Ontario is far harder to challenge when both parties had their own lawyer, disclosed their finances honestly, and had time to consider the terms — and this file showed all three.
2. Addressed the disclosure argument directly. Genevieve's suggestion that Marek's accountant had steered the process didn't hold up against the record: Piotr's own independent lawyer had met with him separately, and the disclosure statements were current as of the signing date, not fabricated later. We set this out plainly in writing to the estate's lawyer, with copies of the certificates attached.
3. Explained why a growing estate doesn't undo a contract. Cohabitation agreements are written knowing that circumstances — including the value of one partner's assets — will change over time. That's the point of a fixed settlement rather than a percentage: both men accepted the risk that Marek's wealth might grow or shrink after signing. We laid out, with the case law on domestic contracts in mind but without relitigating it in correspondence, why a court would be reluctant to rewrite a properly executed agreement simply because one side's assets performed well.
4. Kept a dependant's support application ready as leverage, not as a first move. Piotr did have a live right to apply for support from the estate if the agreement failed — Ontario's succession law allows a dependant, including a common-law spouse, to ask a court for adequate provision even where a will or contract says otherwise. We didn't file that application. Instead, we made clear in writing that we were prepared to, so the estate understood the alternative to honouring the agreement was a court process with its own costs and its own uncertainty for both sides.
5. Negotiated a clean release instead of a court date. Once the estate's lawyer reviewed the full file, the challenge softened considerably. We negotiated a release and settlement confirming the $400,000 payment, with a modest addition to reflect months of delay and estate administration costs Piotr had absorbed while the dispute was pending, in exchange for Piotr formally releasing any further claim against the estate.

The outcome

Piotr received the settlement in full, plus roughly $18,000 to account for the delay, a few months after the estate's lawyer reviewed the original file. No application was ever filed in court. The estate closed, and Genevieve received the remainder as Marek's will had directed — the outcome both men had planned for twelve years earlier, unchanged by how much wealthier the estate had become in the meantime.

What decided this case was not persuasive argument after the fact. It was the quality of a document built years before anyone anticipated a dispute. The agreement survived scrutiny because it had been built to survive scrutiny: separate lawyers for each side, honest disclosure at the time, and terms that anticipated change rather than assuming nothing would.

What you can learn from this