Equivalent to married

[notstepdad]

2.5 years ago, we decided to get married contingent on the purchase of a larger home. We had a 1/3 2/3 ownership agreement in our old house (5.5 years) with cost sharing agreement (verbal).

We purchased the house 1/2 1/2, went to joint retirement planning sessions, had joint lines of credit and credit card, I had access to her bank account to pay bills, we agreed that we were communist, and that my money was our money, and I used my assets to pay down mortgage or marriage expenses. Later that summer though, we decided to use the money we'd spend on marriage fees and ceremonies to just pay down mortgage instead.

I believe there was a supreme court case that ruled under the universal charter of human rights that discrimination based on "marriage status" was "wrong", and so, is my case similarly very clear that we were 'equivalent to married' for the purposes of property separation/spousal support?

On another note, is it possible that we don't qualify as common law (ontario 3 years), because even though we have 8 years of cohabitation, 5.5 of those was under a cost sharing arrangement (though it was conjugal with family meals and such... really just "married but with financial separation and agreements")

[notstepdad]

It turns out that supreme court case overturned the "discrimination based on marriage status" ruling (Walsh v Bona).

Seems unfair to me, but is it common for "levels of common law status" to be considered? where some cohabitation agreements are more like total marriage than others, and separation orders that reflect that?