The current lack of definition for common-law spouses in the Family Property and Support Act means there is no protection for the distribution of the estate when a relationship ends.

'A common-law spouse may not be able to get their fair share of the family assets unless their former partner is willing to co-operate by signing an agreement,' said NDP Leader Todd Hardy, who raised the issue in the legislative assembly Thursday.

Amendments were made to the definition of common-law in 1998, but despite being debated and voted on in the legislature, they still haven't been proclaimed as law, said Hardy.

'Most people assume automatically that common-law is recognized,' he said. 'But there's no legal authority for it to be recognized. It's not there, therefore one spouse or the other is the beneficiary of it not being there.'

Historically, courts have often ruled in favour of the man when it comes to property rights and estate settlements, said Hardy.

With common-law relationships not recognized, unless there is a commitment to co-operation by both parties, there is is the potential for there not being an equitable distribution of what was accumulated during that shared relationship, he said.

The problem with the piece of legislation also holds true for the definition of spouse.

The language of the law hasn't been brought up-to-date since the territory legalized same-sex marriage.

A spouse is still defined as a man and woman who are married.

There is a prevalence of common-law relationships in the Yukon, said Hardy, and the current lack of definition has the potential to affect many individuals as relationships end.

'Surely we need one clear and consistent definition of spouse' and common-law spouse' in all our laws dealing with domestic relationships,' he said.

Other pieces of legislation, such as the Estate Administration Act and the Dependents Relief Act, already include a clear definition of a common-law spouse.

There, a common-law spouse is defined as a person who is united with another person by a marriage that, although not a legal marriage, is valid as common-law, or a person who has cohabited with another person as a couple for at least 12 months before the other person's death.

It is a definition already approved by the legislature for the Family Property and Support Act and it should be placed into it, said Hardy.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that same-sex spouses and common-law spouses must receive equal protection and equal benefit of the law, he added.

'This is a government that does not do its legislative work. Legislative work is part of being a government whether you like it or not otherwise you end up with situations like this,' said Hardy.

The decision on how to split up assets is left to the courts and insurance companies at this time, said Justice Minister Marian Horne.

It is, however, a process that is being reviewed, she said.

After the amendments being approved almost a decade ago, the Justice minister doesn't seem to know what she's talking about, said Hardy.

'We don't expect the minister to always have the answer but we do expect they at least try to work with us when we bring it forward,' he said.

Horne struggled with the questions being put forward by Hardy and NDP MLA Steve Cardiff on the issue in the legislature on Thursday.

After listening to Horne give one-sentence answers and being instructed by other cabinet ministers while the questions were asked, Hardy said, he would have preferred Horne simply stating she needed to look into the matter and get back to him.

Horne didn't commit to looking into the situation as a whole, but indicated she would check into a specific case Hardy referred to in his questions about a woman who had just ended a 10-year relationship.

Hardy said an easy resolution to the situation is to simply have the amendments proclaimed, which could be done immediately through an order-in-council.