Canada’s polygamy law is creating a legal grey zone for polyamorous families

Law360 Canada (April 15, 2026, 9:01 AM EDT) --

Hilary Angrove

A couple of times a year, someone comes to our practice with a version of the same situation: three people in a committed, consensual relationship who want to formalize their rights, divide their property fairly and protect themselves if things ever go sideways. They have done the emotional work and had the hard conversations. They just want a legal agreement.

Unfortunately, I have to tell them that I cannot help them in the way they want.

The result is a growing gap between how Canadians are choosing to structure their relationships and what Canadian law is prepared to recognize. More concerningly, many people in polyamorous relationships are unaware of the legal risks that gap creates. As currently written, the law is broad enough to create a chilling effect — not just on certain relationship structures, but on a lawyer’s ability to provide even basic legal protections to consenting adults.

What polyamory actually looks like

Polyamory is a consensual relationship involving more than two people. In some cases, it’s referred to as a “throuple,” where three partners share equal standing in the relationship. Other times, it might be a couple where one person has a separate, independent partner outside the relationship. In other cases, it might be a married couple who each have outside partners. There are many iterations, but the common thread is consent and transparency.

There is nothing in Canadian law that prevents people from living this way. You can date multiple people, love multiple people and even live together. None of that is illegal.

The problem begins the moment people try to formalize their rights into a marriage-like relationship, or relationships.

Where polyamory runs into polygamy

While polyamory is a relationship structure, polygamy is a legal concept. Under s. 293 of the Criminal Code, polygamy is an indictable offence carrying a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

Polygamy, under Canadian law, is not just about plural legal marriages. It captures any attempt to establish marriage-like rights among more than two people. And that is where well-intentioned family agreements can cross a legal line.

Consider a “throuple” who have lived together for years and now want a cohabitation agreement. They want to address property rights, define how assets would divide if they separate and perhaps address spousal support. By getting that agreement, they are defining marriage-like rights among three people that may fall under s. 293. The law, as written, catches people it was never designed to catch. A cohabitation agreement between consenting adults isn’t a threat to anyone, but the way s. 293 is drafted, I have to think twice before drafting one. That is not a risk I can take, regardless of how very unlikely prosecution might be.

What we can actually do

At Angrove Law, we explain the legal landscape clearly, because most people walking through our virtual door genuinely do not know their relationship could be criminal.

Real estate ownership is generally the reason one of the spouses reaches out. We can offer to draft a co-ownership agreement tied to a specific asset. This is the same tool we use for, say, adult children co-owning a cottage. It will not give our clients the full protection of a cohabitation agreement, but it does establish some clear terms around that asset.

Where it gets more nuanced is support payments. Child support is the right of the child, not of any particular relationship structure. That obligation exists outside the polygamy question entirely, and you cannot contract around child support regardless of relationship structure. What we do not touch is spousal support or anything that would characterize the arrangement as marriage-like among more than two people.

Does the law need to change?

When I consider whether the law needs to change, the question comes up: should consenting adults be able to access legal protections for their relationship?

We are applying a provision written in the 1800s to address concerns about religious settlements on the prairies to consenting adults in modern relationships. I do not believe s. 293 was written with polyamory in mind. It was written to address exploitation, coercion and fraud in the context of plural relationships.

The question becomes whether we can draw a cleaner line between coercive plural relationships and consensual secular ones. But the problem might be that if we make the law too precise about what polygamy requires then you may make it harder to protect people in situations where protection is genuinely needed. Section 293 is very rarely prosecuted, but unfortunately that leaves our clients in a legal grey zone.

Hilary Angrove is CEO and co-founder of Angrove Law, a virtual flat-fee law firm serving clients across Ontario.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.