Treadstone Associates
Case File № 894 · Separation & Divorce

Not the Ontario rule

a Lethbridge common-law buyout under Alberta's own AIP formula

A Lethbridge common-law couple assumed, from what they'd heard about Ontario, that unmarried partners have no property claims against each other on separation. Alberta's Family Property Act was amended to give Adult Interdependent Partners the same presumption of equal division as married spouses -- so their buyout followed the ordinary formula, not a resulting-trust fight.

AlbertaUninsured · RefinanceFiled August 11, 20265 min read
6yrs

the length of the common-law relationship -- well past Alberta's 2-year AIP threshold

$97,500

the buyout owed under Alberta's own equal-division presumption for Adult Interdependent Partners

34.4%

total debt service on the keeping partner's own income once the buyout funded

Anonymized illustration. The borrowers, dollar figures, and rates in this file are an illustrative composite — no real client is identifiable, and any rate shown is illustrative, not a quote. The rules are real: every regulatory figure is cited to its source in the Sources section, and the math computes exactly as shown.

№ 01

The client

A common-law couple in Lethbridge, together six years, separated owning a $390,000 home titled to one partner alone, with a $195,000 mortgage balance -- and both assumed the non-titled partner had no property claim at all.

Home value

$390,000, Lethbridge

Titled to one partner alone

Existing mortgage balance

$195,000

Relationship length

6 years

Above the 2-year Adult Interdependent Partner threshold

Keeping partner's own income

$7,900/month

№ 02

The problem

Alberta's Family Property Act was amended effective January 1, 2020 to extend the same property-division framework married spouses already had to Adult Interdependent Partners -- common-law couples who have lived together at least two years, have a child together, or have registered an adult interdependent partner agreement.

Why the Ontario comparison misled them

  • In Ontario, common-law partners have no equalization right under the Family Law Act and must rely on constructive or resulting trust claims to establish any interest at all
  • Alberta's own Family Property Act does not draw that distinction for a couple who meets the Adult Interdependent Partner threshold -- a presumption of equal division of non-exempt property applies exactly as it would to married spouses
  • The couple's six years together, with no written agreement needed, comfortably met the two-year AIP threshold

Neither partner needed to prove a trust, a contribution, or an expectation of ownership. Alberta's own statute already answered the question the moment they qualified as Adult Interdependent Partners.

№ 03

The numbers

Once AIP status was confirmed, sizing the buyout to the presumptive equal division was straightforward arithmetic -- no trust claim to litigate first.

Buying out under Alberta's own AIP formulaAmount
Home equity$195,000
Equal division under the Family Property Act (50%)$97,500
Total debt service, keeping partner's own incomeFigure
Payment at the qualifying rate (6.80%), 25 years$2,013/mo
Property tax$330/mo
Heat (lender estimate)$125/mo
Car loan$250/mo
Total debt service34.4%

34.4% cleared comfortably on the keeping partner's own income -- once AIP status was confirmed, this file priced no differently from a married spousal buyout anywhere else in the province.

№ 04

The solution

A mortgage associate licensed under Alberta's Real Estate Act treated Adult Interdependent Partner status as the threshold question, not an assumption to be corrected only after a trust claim had already been argued.

First, confirmed the relationship met the Family Property Act's Adult Interdependent Partner threshold -- here, well past two years together, with no separate written agreement required.

Second, had the family lawyer confirm the equal-division presumption applied to the home as non-exempt property, the same starting point the Act sets for married spouses.

Third, sized the refinance to the $97,500 buyout, qualifying the keeping partner on their own income once the family lawyer's figure was final.

Confirmation of Adult Interdependent Partner status (2 years cohabiting, a child together, or a registered AIP agreement)
Family lawyer's written confirmation of the Family Property Act division figure
Confirmation of which property, if any, is exempt from the equal-division presumption
Standard refinance documentation for the keeping partner's own income, credit and down payment
№ 05

The outcome

The refinance funded at 4.80%, the departing partner received the $97,500 buyout under the Family Property Act, and total debt service settled at 34.4%.

Because this is an uninsured refinance, CMHC's ratio maximums do not apply directly; the 34.4% figure is informational.

№ 06

What to take from this file

  • 01Alberta does not treat common-law property division the way Ontario does. Since 2020, Adult Interdependent Partners share the same Family Property Act presumption of equal division as married spouses.
  • 02The AIP threshold is two years of cohabitation, a child together, or a registered agreement. No court application or trust claim is required to establish it.
  • 03Never import a rule from another province. What a broker knows about Ontario's common-law regime can actively misprice an Alberta file.
  • 04Confirm AIP status and exempt property with a family lawyer before assuming any split. The presumption is equal division of non-exempt property, not automatically the entire home.

Sources

Every regulatory figure in this file traces to one of these primary sources. Client details and anything that varies by lender are illustrative, as flagged below.

Illustrative in this file — lender-specific, not rules:

  • 4.80% contract rate — rates move daily; not a quote.
  • the 50/50 division of the home — this couple's own settlement; the Act's presumption applies to non-exempt property, and any exempt-property adjustment would change the figure.
  • the TDS figure — this is an uninsured refinance, so there is no CMHC ratio ceiling -- the number is informational.

Authority & provenance

How this case file was built

We publish the origin, the verification method and the reviewer for every case file, so you can judge how far to trust it before you rely on it with a client.

Where it comes from

Derived from files handled by Treadstone’s fulfillment desk and from scenarios contributed by partner brokerages. Names, employers, exact amounts and dates are changed so no client or file is identifiable.

Provenance: Composite — a pattern seen repeatedly on fulfilled files, not a single transaction.

What is verified

Every regulatory figure traces to a primary source listed above and was checked against it on the date shown. The arithmetic is recomputed by machine on every rebuild.

Anything that varies by lender is labelled illustrative rather than stated as a rule.

Who reviewed it

Reviewed for Canadian regulatory accuracy before publication, and re-checked whenever a cited rule changes.

Reviewed by: Nicholas Parson, Treadstone Associates — reviews every case file before publication.

First published 11 August 2026Rules last verified 11 August 2026Next scheduled review 11 February 2027

This case file is professional reference material for licensed mortgage professionals. It is not advice to a borrower, and it is not a lender commitment. Insurer rules, qualifying rates and provincial taxes change — confirm the current position with the insurer, regulator or lender before you rely on any figure here in a live file.

Treadstone fulfillment

Files like this are daily work for our desk.

Document collection, ratio math under multiple treatments, lender placement notes, and submission-ready packaging — for Canadian mortgage brokers who would rather be in front of clients.