Manitoba homestead rights can affect an estate’s ability to sell a family home after a partner dies. In many cases, the existence of homestead rights can result in a life estate for a surviving common-law partner. The life estate allows the common-law partner to continue to reside in the family home for their lifetime. However, in some circumstances, the homestead rights alone do not necessarily prevent the estate from obtaining an order for the sale of the property. In Burbank v. Lelyk, 2025 MBKB 83, the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench considered this issue in the context of a disputed common-law relationship and an estate that needed to sell the deceased’s property to satisfy estate debts.
How Homestead Rights Interact with an Estate
Homestead rights can provide important protections to a spouse or common-law partner in relation to a family home. However, those rights do not necessarily amount to a permanent right to retain the property.
Under The Law of Property Act, the Court may, in certain circumstances, dispense with the consent of a common-law partner or terminate a common-law partner’s homestead rights.
The Court must also consider the estate’s obligations. Where an estate requires the sale of property to satisfy debts, the existence of homestead rights does not prevent the Court from ordering the sale of the property.
The Dispute in Burbank v. Lelyk
In Burbank v. Lelyk, the deceased, Sheila, and her partner, Wyman, lived together in a common-law relationship for several years. Sheila owned the property they lived at together in her sole name.
Following Sheila’s death, the estate sought an order allowing the property to be sold. Wyman claimed homestead rights and opposed the sale of the property.
The estate argued that the common-law relationship had ended several years before Sheila’s death. If the relationship had in face been severed, the estate argued that Wyman’s homestead rights would have been extinguished.
Wyman disputed that the relationship had ever ended.
The disagreement therefore created an important preliminary question: were Sheila and Wyman still living as common-law partners when Sheila died?
When Has a Common-Law Relationship Ended?
Determining whether a common-law relationship has ended is not always straightforward.
The Court noted that cohabitation alone does not determine common-law status. Likewise, where parties continue living together but one party claims that the relationship has ended, the evidence supporting separation must be “clear and convincing.”
The Court also considered whether a person communicated their intention to separate and acted on that intention.
In assessing whether parties are living separate and apart, courts may consider a range of factors relating to the nature of the relationship, including the parties’ conduct and living arrangements.
This can create particular difficulties in estate matters. A deceased person cannot provide evidence about their intentions, leaving the Court to consider the documentary and other evidence available.
The Evidence Was Not Sufficient to Resolve the Issue
In this case, there was evidence to support both parties positions.
Sheila had changed her marital status to “single” on her tax returns and life insurance coverage. Although Sheila and Wyman continued to live in the property together, she had moved her possessions to a separate bedroom.
Wyman had correspondence addressed jointly to himself and Sheila and a number of letters from acquaintances who confirmed their understanding that the two were common-law partners. He had also continued to assist Sheila during her battle with cancer, taking her to appointments and picking up prescriptions for her.
The Court did not ultimately decide about whether the parties had been living separate and apart.
Instead, the Court directed a reference to an Associate Judge to make a determination on common-law status.
Can the Property Still Be Sold?
Even though the status of the common-law relationship remained unresolved, The Court also considered whether the estate could sell the property.
The Court considered previous decisions concerning Manitoba homestead rights, including Crichton v. Zelensky and Siwak v. Siwak. Those decisions establish that a spouse or common-law partner’s homestead right does not necessarily become a life interest in the home following the death of the other spouse or partner.
The Court determined that any life estate was subject to the estate’s creditors.
Because the sale of Sheila’s property was necessary to satisfy debts of the estate, the Court concluded that an order for partition and sale could be made under section 19 of The Law of Property Act without first determining whether Wyman ultimately had homestead rights.
The Court did not actually decide whether Wyman had homestead rights. Rather, it determined that the potential existence of those rights did not prevent the property from being sold.
What Happens to the Homestead Claim?
The Court’s order separated the sale of the property from the final determination of Wyman’s rights.
Wyman was given 14 days to vacate the property. The Court also directed an Associate Judge to determine whether Wyman had homestead rights and, if so, the value of those rights.
The Court ordered the estate to deposit the net sale proceeds into Court until it finally determined Wyman’s homestead rights.
Therefore, the dispute over the homestead claim could continue without preventing the estate from proceeding with the sale.
What This Means for Estate Administration
The decision demonstrates that a claim of Manitoba homestead rights does not necessarily mean that estate property cannot be sold.
Where an estate has debts that must be paid, the Court may order the sale of property even where a surviving spouse or common-law partner claims an interest in the property. The surviving partner’s rights may instead be quantified and paid out from the proceeds of the sale.
At the same time, Burbank v. Lelyk also shows how uncertainty about common-law status can complicate and delay estate administration.
Where a relationship has ended but the parties continue to live together, there may be no single document that conclusively establishes the date of separation. Evidence such as changes to marital status, financial arrangements, living arrangements and communications may become relevant in determining whether the relationship had actually ended.
The Importance of Clear Documentation
The case also illustrates why changes in relationship status should be clearly documented.
Where a person believes that a common-law relationship has ended, continuing to share a residence can create uncertainty about the legal status of the relationship. That uncertainty can become particularly significant after death, when questions about property rights, homestead rights and estate administration arise.
Updating estate planning documents after separation helps people clearly record their circumstances and intentions. An estate planning lawyer can also advise of the impact of the rights and claims on your estate, and help you to consider options for preventing, defending or planning around such claims.
If you are looking for support with your estate planning, you can reach out to us at info@traditionlaw.ca to get connected with one of our estate planning lawyers.