Also gigi1612 by "conjugal" I am not meaning the other family class category, I am talking about this:
"Characteristics of conjugal relationships
The word “conjugal” is not defined in legislation; however, the factors that are used to determine
whether a couple is in a conjugal relationship are described in court decisions.
Marriage is a status-based relationship existing from the day the marriage is legally valid until it is
severed by death or divorce. A common-law relationship (and in the immigration context, a
conjugal partner relationship) is a fact-based relationship which exists from the day on which the
two individuals can reasonably demonstrate that the relationship meets the definition set out in the
Regulations. While this is a significant difference, there are many similarities in the two types of
relationships. This is because of the history of the recognition in law of common-law relationships
and their definition, which includes the word “conjugal.”
The term “conjugal” was originally used to describe marriage. Then, over the years, it was
expanded by various court decisions to describe “marriage-like” relationships, i.e., a man and a
woman in a common-law relationship. With the M. v. H. decision in 1999, the Supreme Court of
Canada further expanded the term to include same-sex common-law couples.
The word “conjugal” does not mean “sexual relations” alone. It signifies that there is a significant
degree of attachment between two partners. The word “conjugal” comes from two Latin words,
one meaning “join” and the other meaning “yoke,” thus, literally, the term means “joined together”
or “yoked together.”
In the M. v. H. decision, the Supreme Court adopts the list of factors that must be considered in
determining whether any two individuals are actually in a conjugal relationship from the decision of
the Ontario Court of Appeal in Moldowich v. Penttinen.
They include:
• shared shelter (e.g., sleeping arrangements);
• sexual and personal behaviour (e.g., fidelity, commitment, feelings towards each other);
• services (e.g., conduct and habit with respect to the sharing of household chores)
• social activities (e.g., their attitude and conduct as a couple in the community and with their
families);
• economic support (e.g., financial arrangements, ownership of property);
• children (e.g., attitude and conduct concerning children)
• the societal perception of the two as a couple.
From the language used by the Supreme Court throughout M. v. H., it is clear that a conjugal
relationship is one of some permanence, where individuals are interdependent – financially,
socially, emotionally, and physically – where they share household and related responsibilities,
and where they have made a serious commitment to one another.
Based on this, the following characteristics should be present to some degree in all conjugal
relationships, married and unmarried:
• mutual commitment to a shared life;
• exclusive – cannot be in more than one conjugal relationship at a time;
• intimate – commitment to sexual exclusivity;
• interdependent – physically, emotionally, financially, socially;
• permanent – long-term, genuine and continuing relationship;
• present themselves as a couple;
• regarded by others as a couple;
• caring for children (if there are children).
People who are dating or who are thinking about marrying or living together and establishing a
common-law relationship are NOT yet in a conjugal relationship, nor are people who want to live
together to “try out” their relationship.
Persons in a conjugal relationship have made a significant commitment to one another. A married
couple makes the commitment publicly at a specific point in time via their marriage vows and
ceremony, and the marriage certificate and registration is a record of that commitment. In a
common-law or conjugal partner relationship, there is not necessarily a single point in time at
which a commitment is made, and there is no one legal document attesting to the commitment.
Instead, there is the passage of time together, the building of intimacy and emotional ties and the
accumulation of other types of evidence, such as naming one another as beneficiaries of
insurance policies or estates, joint ownership of possessions, joint decision-making with
consequences for one partner affecting the other, and financial support of one another (joint
expenses or sharing of income, etc. When taken together, these facts indicate that the couple has
come to a similar point as that of a married couple – there is significant commitment and mutual
interdependence in a monogamous relationship of some permanence. "
