Family lawyers on cohabitation and judge-made law^†.

This article examines the judicial adaptation of the doctrine of unjust enrichment in Canadian private law to address economic claims between unmarried cohabitants, focusing on the Supreme Court of Canada's 2011 decision in Kerr v Baranow. Through empirical interviews with family lawyers in Quebec, where cohabitation is prevalent and legislative reform limited, the study finds that claims under Kerr are complex, costly, and yield unpredictable outcomes that hinder fair settlements, often disadvantaging women. It also reveals that cohabitation agreements are rare and frequently serve to limit rather than protect partners' rights. The article critiques Kerr's internal inconsistencies—particularly its recognition of cohabiting couples as partnerships without presuming equal sharing of assets—and highlights the nuanced institutional challenges facing both judicial and legislative reforms in this area.