Demographic Documents
Unpacking Canada’s multigenerational households: A look at the people who call them home

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the following Statistics Canada colleagues for their insightful comments on early drafts of this article: Thomas Anderson, Paula Arriagada, Nicolas Bastien, Amanda Bleakney, Sylvie Godin, Bertrand Ouellet-Léveillé, Laurent Martel, France-Pascale Ménard, Anne Milan, Jerry Situ and Jennifer Yuen.

Highlights

• In 2021, 2.4 million people in Canada lived in a multigenerational household, representing 6.5% of all persons living in a private household. The prevalence of this living arrangement varied considerably across the country. While 1 in 4 persons (24.9%) in Nunavut lived in a multigenerational household, this was the case for 3.1% of persons living in Quebec.
• Consistent with patterns observed in other countries, individuals representing the oldest generation within a multigenerational household were predominantly women.
• In 2021, about 1 in 8 (12.2%) one-parent families lived in a multigenerational household. Most (79.3%) of the parents heading these families were the middle generation in the household, residing with both their children and their parents.
• Over half (52.7%) of people living in multigenerational households in 2021 were racialized, and two-fifths (40.5%) were born outside Canada—both proportions considerably higher than those of the population living in other households (24.7% and 25.5%, respectively).
• Multigenerational living was most prevalent among people reporting ethnic or cultural origins rooted in South Asia: In 2021, more than one-third of persons with Sikh (36.6%) or Punjabi (34.2%) ethnic or cultural origins lived in a multigenerational household. Proportions were also relatively high among those with Tamil (21.7%), Pakistani (19.3%), Indian (19.0%) or Sri Lankan (18.7%) ethnic or cultural origins.
• Among individuals comprising the oldest generation in a multigenerational household, nearly one-quarter (23.8%) did not know English or French well enough to conduct a conversation.
• Compared to other households, a lower proportion of multigenerational households had unaffordable housing (20.8% versus 11.1%), but a relatively higher proportion were characterized as crowded (4.7% versus 28.3%).
• Compared to other households, a lower proportion of multigenerational households were in low income (15.5% versus 4.3%), and similarly, a smaller proportion were in core housing need (10.3% versus 4.6%).

Introduction

Over recent decades, Canada has experienced rapid growth in households made up of various combinations of immediate family, extended relatives and non-relatives.^Note  Among these, multigenerational households—where three or more generations of the same family live together—are among the most prominent.

In 2021, there were nearly half a million multigenerational households in Canada (441,750), representing a 21.2% increase in number from 2011 (364,505).^Note  This growth rate exceeded that of all households combined, which rose by 12.4%. The increase in multigenerational households may reflect a deliberate strategy among families facing challenges related to housing affordability and the cost of living, as well as shifting lifestyle and cultural preferences.^Note  As the ethnocultural composition of the population continues to evolve^Note  alongside population aging^Note  , multigenerational living arrangements may play an increasingly important role in the care and support networks of children, parents and older adults in the coming years.

The remainder of this study unpacks Canada’s multigenerational households, describing the sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the people who call them home.

Multigenerational living is most prevalent in Nunavut, British Columbia and Ontario, while rare in Quebec

There were 2.4 million people living in multigenerational households in Canada in 2021, representing 6.5% of all persons living in private households.^Note  Regionally, the prevalence of multigenerational living varies substantially (Table 1). Half (50.2%) of all people living in multigenerational households in 2021 resided in the province of Ontario—an overrepresentation given that the province accounted for 38.6% of Canada’s total population that year. Similarly, the population living in multigenerational households was overrepresented in British Columbia (17.7%) compared to its share of Canada’s total population (13.5%). Together, Ontario and British Columbia were home to two-thirds (67.9%) of all people living in multigenerational households in 2021.

Owing to its small population, Nunavut accounted for a very small share of Canada’s total population living in multigenerational households. However, this living arrangement was by far the most prevalent in that territory. In 2021, one in four Nunavut residents (24.9%) lived in a multigenerational household, more than triple the national average (6.5%). Previous studies have found that the prevalence of crowded housing was elevated among Inuit living in Inuit Nunangat (including Nunavut), owing to housing supply challenges and shortages.^{Note  Note} 

In contrast, multigenerational living was relatively rare in Quebec: In 2021, 3.1% of people in the province lived in a multigenerational household, the lowest proportion among the provinces and territories. Quebec has long held the highest share of persons living alone among the provinces and territories.^Note  It also has a low prevalence of young adults living with their parents^Note  and grandchildren living with their grandparents.^Note  These patterns are thought to reflect a combination of relatively low shelter costs in Quebec’s urban areas, as well as various sociocultural and structural factors—including the fact that a higher-than-average share of older adults in the province reside in long-term care homes or residences for older adults.^Note 

Overall, the prevalence of multigenerational living was slightly lower in rural^Note  areas of the country (4.9%) than in urban^Note  areas (6.8%). Within these urban areas, the census metropolitan area (CMA)^Note  of Abbotsford-Mission had the highest share of persons living in a multigenerational household in 2021 (17.5%), followed by the CMA of Toronto (11.6%) (Map 1). In line with provincial patterns, various communities in Quebec had the lowest shares: One percent or fewer of all persons residing in the census agglomerations of Rimouski, Thetford Mines, Saint-Georges and Rivière-du-Loup were living in a multigenerational household in 2021.

Data table for Map 1

Data table for map 1
Table summary
The information is grouped by Region (appearing as row headers), , calculated using (appearing as column headers).

Region	percent
Notes: This map shows the census metropolitan areas (CMAs) and census agglomerations (CAs) with the highest and lowest proportions of individuals living in multigenerational households in 2021. A census metropolitan area (CMA) or a census agglomeration (CA) is formed by one or more adjacent municipalities centred on a population centre (known as the core). A CMA must have a total population of at least 100,000, based on data from the current Census of Population Program, of which 50,000 or more must live in the core based on adjusted data from the previous Census of Population Program. A CA must have a core population of at least 10,000 also based on data from the previous Census of Population Program. To be included in the CMA or CA, other adjacent municipalities must have a high degree of integration with the core, as measured by commuting flows derived from data on place of work from the previous Census Program. Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2021 (3901).
Abbotsford-Mission	17.5
Toronto	11.6
Vancouver	10.6
Oshawa	9.7
Essa	9.7
Alma	1.1
Rimouski	1.0
Thetford Mines	1.0
Saint-Georges	0.8
Rivière-du-Loup	0.8

All in the family: Benefits and burdens of multigenerational living

Sharing your living space with extended family members can offer unique advantages as well as challenges in comparison with other living arrangements. When asked about the factors that led them to live in a multigenerational household, most people place financial considerations at the top of their list. Particularly for younger adults who may be facing challenging circumstances such as unemployment, underemployment, housing supply shortages, or relationship dissolution, sharing a home with older relatives can provide a protective effect against poverty and ease financial pressures via resource pooling. This living arrangement is also often framed as being practical for its members; it can offer benefits such as the provision of informal care of young children or adults in need, potentially enhancing work-life balance and permitting older adults to continue living at home.^Note 

Additional social and emotional benefits of multigenerational living are also commonly noted, such as the companionship and support that this arrangement can offer. Living with others can improve mental health for some individuals by reducing feelings of loneliness and isolation. The regular interaction between younger and older generations can also aid the development of the former and provide a sense of purpose and satisfaction to the latter, improving well-being while boosting intergenerational solidarity.^Note 

On the other hand, some aspects of multigenerational living may lead to increased tensions when private spaces are unavailable or insufficient to household members, or when the design of the dwelling is unsuitable.^Note  Crowded living conditions can also have direct negative impacts on the health of older, frail household members.^Note  Sharing space with one’s younger or older family members can strain intergenerational relationships due to evolving norms and beliefs among the respective generations, differing parenting styles or disagreements over household chores.^Note  It can also impact the wider social networks of individuals, if, for instance, they avoid bringing home friends or romantic partners due to a lack of privacy or space.^Note 

There is also evidence that sharing a home with younger adult relatives can be detrimental to the financial well-being of the older generations, who may be, for instance, financing their own retirement as well as the expenses of their adult children and grandchildren out of a sense of filial obligation or cultural expectations, sometimes reducing their own savings and wealth.^Note  Older generations have generally been found to be ‘net givers’ of financial and time resources within multigenerational households.^Note 

People living in multigenerational households come from a variety of paths in life; there is considerable diversity in the family characteristics, socioeconomic and cultural circumstances of each generation in the family which intersect with those of the other family members. Research to date indicates that an individual’s satisfaction with multigenerational living will be largely driven by the degree to which they had a choice in the arrangement, rather than perceiving that there was no viable alternative.^Note 

Living in a multigenerational household is most common in early childhood and older adulthood (Chart 1). In 2021, one in ten (10.2%) young children aged 0 to 4 lived in a multigenerational household, while this was true of 7.5% of persons aged 85 and over. This living arrangement was least prevalent among adults in their late 50s (4.9%); as seen in the companion piece to this study, Adulting together: Parents and adult children who co-reside, many persons in this age group live with their adult children without any additional generations of the family present.

Data table for Chart 1

Data table for chart 1
Table summary
The information is grouped by Age group (appearing as row headers), , calculated using (appearing as column headers).

Age group	percent
Note: The horizontal line refers to the proportion for all ages combined. Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2021 (3901).
All ages	6.5
0 to 4	10.2
5 to 9	9.0
10 to 14	8.3
15 to 19	7.6
20 to 24	6.3
25 to 29	5.4
30 to 34	5.6
35 to 39	6.2
40 to 44	6.3
45 to 49	6.2
50 to 54	5.6
55 to 59	4.9
60 to 64	5.0
65 to 69	5.8
70 to 74	6.4
75 to 79	6.7
80 to 84	7.2
85 and over	7.5

While members of the youngest generation in multigenerational households were mostly children under the age of 15 (65.4%), the age distributions of those in the middle and oldest generations were more varied (Chart 2). Most people representing the middle generation were Millennials (between the ages of 25 and 40 that year) or Gen X-ers (aged 41 to 55). In contrast, the bulk of the oldest generation were Baby Boomers who were aged 56 to 75 in 2021. The Millennials and the Baby Boomers were Canada’s fastest-growing and largest birth cohorts, respectively, in 2021.^Note 

Data table for Chart 2

Data table for chart 2
Table summary
The information is grouped by Age group (appearing as row headers), Youngest generation, Middle generation, Oldest generation and All persons in multigenerational households, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Age group	Youngest generation	Middle generation	Oldest generation	All persons in multigenerational households
	percent
Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2021 (3901).
0 to 4	22.8	0.3	0.0	7.9
5 to 9	22.2	0.5	0.0	7.8
10 to 14	20.4	1.1	0.0	7.4
15 to 19	16.0	2.4	0.0	6.4
20 to 24	10.9	5.0	0.0	5.9
25 to 29	5.2	9.0	0.0	5.5
30 to 34	1.6	13.7	0.1	6.0
35 to 39	0.5	16.4	0.3	6.5
40 to 44	0.2	15.9	1.2	6.4
45 to 49	0.1	14.0	2.9	6.0
50 to 54	0.0	10.6	5.6	5.5
55 to 59	0.0	6.6	10.6	5.4
60 to 64	0.0	3.0	15.5	5.4
65 to 69	0.0	1.0	18.1	5.3
70 to 74	0.0	0.3	17.5	4.9
75 to 79	0.0	0.1	12.5	3.4
80 to 84	0.0	0.0	8.5	2.3
85 and over	0.0	0.0	7.2	2.0

Women are overrepresented among the oldest generation in multigenerational households

Most people representing the middle or oldest generation in multigenerational households were women (53.7% and 62.5%, respectively), while the opposite was true among the youngest generation, among which 52.4% of persons were boys or men (Chart 3). The greater prevalence of boys or men in the youngest generation is largely a function of the composition in the general population at these ages: overall, 51.3% of persons aged 14 and under in 2021 were boys.

Data table for Chart 3

Data table for chart 3
Table summary
The information is grouped by Household type and generation of person (appearing as row headers), , calculated using (appearing as column headers).

Household type and generation of person	percent
Notes: The horizontal line refers to the level at which there would be an equal number of women+ and men+. Given that the non-binary population is small, data aggregation to a two-category gender variable is sometimes necessary to protect the confidentiality of responses provided. In these cases, individuals in the category "non-binary persons" are distributed into the other two gender categories and are denoted by the "+" symbol. The category "Women+" includes women or girls, as well as some non-binary persons. The category "Men+" includes men or boys, as well as some non-binary persons. Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2021 (3901).
Gender parity	50.0
Youngest generation in a multigenerational household	47.6
Middle generation in a multigenerational household	53.7
Oldest generation in a multigenerational household	62.5
In other households	50.4

The predominance of women among the older generations of multigenerational households reflects several factors. Firstly, the greater longevity of women on average translates to relatively more uncoupled older women in the population who may seek out multigenerational living for the potential companionship, mutual care and support that this living situation could offer.^Note  As evidence of this, close to one-third (31.0%) of oldest-generation women were widowed, compared with 10.1% of oldest-generation men.

Additionally, the more vulnerable financial situation of older women relative to older men—especially after divorce or widowhood^Note  , may push them to combine resources with their adult children to better manage the cost of living. Among members of the older generation, the proportion of women who were separated or divorced (16.2%) was higher than the proportion among men (9.6%).

Cultural norms around caring and social interaction may also contribute to the greater presence of matriarchs in multigenerational households, i.e., the greater likelihood of mothers as opposed to fathers to live with their adult children. Previous studies have found that grandmothers are more likely than grandfathers to report caring for grandchildren (whether they co-reside or not)^{Note  Note}  , and adult children are more likely to spend time regularly with their mother than with their father.^Note 

Diverse relationship configurations among the middle and oldest generations in multigenerational households

While generally, all the members of a multigenerational household are related to one another in some form^Note  , the specific family situation of each generation in the household varies considerably (Chart 4). In 2021, the vast majority (99.6%) of persons representing the youngest generation were children living with at least one of their parents in a census family.^Note  In contrast, most middle-generation persons lived with a spouse or partner (66.9%), though 19.1% were heading one-parent families. An additional 12.3% of middle-generation persons were children in census families—meaning that they were living with parents as well as at least one younger relative such as their niece or nephew, and without a spouse, partner or children of their own in the household.

Data table for Chart 4

Data table for chart 4
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 4 Oldest generation, Middle generation and Youngest generation, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

	Oldest generation	Middle generation	Youngest generation
	percent
Note: In multigenerational households, census family status is prioritized for the youngest two generations of the family. For example, an individual who is living with their adult child and their grandchild (the child of their adult child) would be considered "living with other relatives" while the adult child and grandchild would be considered members of a one-parent census family. Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2021 (3901).
Child in census family	0.0	12.3	99.6
Spouse or partner in census family (with or without children)	58.3	66.9	0.4
Parent in one-parent census family	6.7	19.1	0.0
Not in a census family - living with other relatives	35.0	1.8	0.0

Like the middle generation, most members of the oldest generation in multigenerational households were living with their spouse or partner in 2021 (58.3%). However, more than one-third (35.0%) were categorized as “living with relatives”; in most cases, these persons were living with their adult child and at least one of their grandchildren.

Multigenerational living is common among young parents heading one-parent families

The members of one-parent families are particularly economically vulnerable given that the parents heading them are less likely to be employed^Note  and more likely to be in low income^Note  than other parents, on average. For some of these parents, sharing a home with their own parents may offer benefits such as assistance in the caring of children^Note  and the sharing of housing expenses^Note  , reducing the likelihood of their children living in poverty.^Note  In 2021, about 1 in 8 (12.2%) one-parent families were living in a multigenerational household. Among those, most (79.3%) of the parents represented the middle generation in the household, meaning they lived with their child and one or more of their parents.

Multigenerational living is particularly prevalent among young parents who are not living with a spouse or partner. Among teenage parents (aged 15 to 19) heading a one-parent family in 2021, more than four-fifths (85.7%) were the middle generation in a multigenerational household, while this was also true for just under half of 20- to 24-year-old parents heading a one-parent family (47.3%).

Regardless of the type of household in which they lived, most parents heading one-parent families in 2021 were women (77.2%). However, women accounted for a slightly lower percentage of these parents in multigenerational households (74.9%) than in other households (77.6%), particularly among those aged less than 50. This difference was driven by the greater propensity of young men heading one-parent families to live with their parents (Chart 5). For instance, among 20- to 24-year-old parents not living with a spouse or partner, more than three-quarters (76.3%) of men lived in a multigenerational household while this was the case for 40.9% of women. In sum, among one-parent families, multigenerational living is more common when the parent is relatively young, and particularly if the parent is a young man.

Data table for Chart 5

Data table for chart 5
Table summary
The information is grouped by Age group (appearing as row headers), Men+ and Women+, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Age group	Men+	Women+
	percent
Note: Given that the non-binary population is small, data aggregation to a two-category gender variable is sometimes necessary to protect the confidentiality of responses provided. In these cases, individuals in the category "non-binary persons" are distributed into the other two gender categories and are denoted by the "+" symbol. The category "Women+" includes women, as well as some non-binary persons. The category "Men+" includes men, as well as some non-binary persons. Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2021 (3901).
15 to 19	95.9	80.0
20 to 24	76.3	40.9
25 to 29	48.3	25.9
30 to 34	30.4	18.2
35 to 39	19.3	13.5
40 to 44	13.9	11.0
45 to 49	11.0	9.9
50 to 54	8.9	9.1
55 to 59	7.0	8.8
60 to 64	6.3	8.8
65 to 69	6.3	9.0
70 to 74	6.7	8.0
75 to 79	6.6	7.4
80 to 84	6.6	6.7
85 and over	6.3	5.7

Two in five people living in multigenerational households were born outside of Canada

In 2021, two in five (40.5%) people living in multigenerational households were born outside Canada—considerably higher than the rate among persons residing in other households (25.5%). Within multigenerational households, the prevalence of foreign-born persons was highest among the oldest generation (61.8%) and lowest among the youngest generation (10.0%). That said, among the members of the youngest generation, close to half (48.6%) were born in Canada to at least one parent who was born outside Canada.

The greater tendency of foreign-born persons to live in a multigenerational household has been found in many other western countries and largely reflects cultural preferences and norms in their regions of origin.^Note  Additionally, having more relatives in the household can facilitate more effective transmission of the culture of origin to younger family members.^Note  Sharing a home with relatives can also be a practical economic strategy for newcomers in the face of labour market barriers or housing accessibility challenges^Note  , particularly those who have joined their adult children, parents or relatives via family-sponsored immigration programs.^Note  Overall, however, this living arrangement was less prevalent among recent immigrants^Note  (8.0%) than among established immigrants^Note  (11.4%).

While some families may form a multigenerational household for a period to host a relative staying in Canada temporarily for work, school, or other reasons, relatively few non-permanent residents lived in these households in 2021 (3.4%).

Among foreign-born persons, those born in South Asia^Note  or Southeast Asia had the highest prevalence of living in multigenerational households, at 19.8% and 13.1%, respectively. In contrast, multigenerational living was relatively rare among persons born in Western Europe (2.2%), Northern Europe (3.8%), or Africa (4.4%) (Map 2), matching the general patterns observed among the diaspora living in other countries.^Note 

Data table for Map 2

Data table for map 2
Table summary
The information is grouped by Place of birth (appearing as row headers), , calculated using (appearing as column headers).

Place of birth	percent
Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2021 (3901).
Western Europe	2.2
Northern Europe	3.8
North America (excluding Canada)	4.3
Africa	4.4
Canada	5.3
Eastern Europe	6.4
Central America	7.1
Southern Europe	7.4
West Central Asia and the Middle East	7.8
South America	8.4
Oceania	9.0
Caribbean and Bermuda	10.6
Eastern Asia	11.3
Southeast Asia	13.1
Southern Asia	19.8

Racialized persons represent more than half of the population living in multigenerational households

In 2021, racialized persons^Note  represented more than half (52.7%) of Canada’s population living in multigenerational households (Table 2). In step with trends observed by place of birth, this living arrangement was most prevalent among South Asian persons, among whom one-fifth resided in multigenerational households (20.4%)—more than triple the share recorded for the general population.

Apart from Japanese persons, all other racialized groups had higher rates of multigenerational living in 2021 than the rest of the population (4.2%).

Among different ethnic or cultural origin groups, multigenerational living was most prevalent among persons who reported ethnic or cultural origins rooted in South Asia: In 2021, more than one in three persons with Sikh (36.6%) or Punjabi (34.2%) ethnic or cultural origins lived in a multigenerational household; proportions were also relatively high for persons with Tamil (21.7%), Pakistani (19.3%), Indian (19.0%) or Sri Lankan (18.7%) ethnic or cultural origins.

One in ten Indigenous persons lives in a multigenerational household

Overall, the proportion of Indigenous persons living in multigenerational households was higher than that of non-Indigenous persons (10.4% and 6.4%, respectively) (Chart 6). However, there was considerable variation in the prevalence of this living arrangement within the Indigenous population, being most prevalent among Inuit (18.3%) and least prevalent among Métis (5.7%).

Data table for Chart 6

Data table for chart 6
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 6 , calculated using (appearing as column headers).

	percent
Note: The categories of First Nations, Métis and Inuit are limited to persons who identified as only one Indigenous group. Persons who reported multiple Indigenous responses or Indigenous responses not included elsewhere are included in the total Indigenous identity population. Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2021 (3901).
Inuit	18.3
Métis	5.7
First Nations	12.8
Total - Indigenous persons	10.4
Non-Indigenous persons	6.4

Close to one-quarter of the oldest-generation members of multigenerational households do not know English or French well enough to be able to conduct a conversation

Previous studies have found that multigenerational households have a higher prevalence of multiple languages being spoken in the home, which reflects their relatively large size and diverse ethnocultural composition.^Note  In 2021, close to half (45.6%) of individuals in multigenerational households had a mother tongue that was a non-official language or multiple non-official languages—almost double the rate among persons living in other households (23.2%) (Table 3). This linguistic attribute was most prevalent among the oldest generation (56.2%).

The members of the oldest generation held another linguistic distinction: In 2021, nearly one-quarter (23.8%) of them could not conduct a conversation in either of Canada’s two official languages. In contrast, this rate was very low among the youngest and middle generations (2.4% and 2.5%, respectively) or among the population living in other households (1.4%).

For some older adults, the inability to converse in one of Canada’s official languages may create challenges in navigating daily tasks, including social interactions outside of the household and the acquisition of goods and services.^Note  It is possible that multigenerational living may serve as a strategy to navigate these challenges, with the middle generation serving as a kind of bridge to assist their older parents or relatives when necessary. As evidence of this, 36.9% of middle-generation persons in multigenerational households reported speaking two or more languages on a regular basis at home and nearly all (97.5%) spoke English or French.

The presence of the oldest generation in the household may also increase the likelihood of their co-resident grandchildren speaking a non-official language: In 2021, 29.3% of the youngest-generation members of multigenerational households spoke two or more languages at home—considerably higher than the proportion among the population in other households (17.9%).

Fewer working-age adults in multigenerational households are employed than those in other household types

For working-aged persons who are not engaged in or seeking paid employment, sharing a home with younger or older relatives may be a way to manage housing expenses in the absence of employment income.

Among adults under the age of 50, those living in multigenerational households had lower employment rates^Note  than their counterparts of the same age living in other households (Chart 7). That said, the magnitude of this difference varied by generation status. For example, among persons aged 25 to 29 in 2021, 68.8% of those forming the youngest generation in multigenerational households were employed, compared with 58.1% of middle-generation persons. In contrast, 76.1% of 25- to 29-year-olds living in other types of households were employed.

Data table for Chart 7

Data table for chart 7
Table summary
The information is grouped by Age group (appearing as row headers), Youngest generation in multigenerational households, Middle generation in multigenerational households, Oldest generation in multigenerational households and In other households, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Age group	Youngest generation in multigenerational households	Middle generation in multigenerational households	Oldest generation in multigenerational households	In other households
	percent
Note .. not available for a specific reference period Notes: For select combinations of age group and generation status of persons in multigenerational households, percentages are omitted due to low counts. "Employed" refers to persons who, during the reference period, had a labour force status of 'employed'. The reference period was the week of Sunday, May 2 to Saturday, May 8, 2021 For a more detailed definition, see the entry for "Employed person" in Dictionary, Census of Population, 2021. Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2021 (3901).
15 to 19	25.2	24.7	.. not available for a specific reference period	34.8
20 to 24	54.2	47.9	.. not available for a specific reference period	62.5
25 to 29	68.8	58.1	.. not available for a specific reference period	76.1
30 to 34	.. not available for a specific reference period	66.9	.. not available for a specific reference period	78.7
35 to 39	.. not available for a specific reference period	73.8	.. not available for a specific reference period	79.7
40 to 44	.. not available for a specific reference period	77.6	.. not available for a specific reference period	80.7
45 to 49	.. not available for a specific reference period	80.0	.. not available for a specific reference period	80.6
50 to 54	.. not available for a specific reference period	78.8	.. not available for a specific reference period	77.7
55 to 59	.. not available for a specific reference period	73.3	55.4	69.0
60 to 64	.. not available for a specific reference period	60.4	41.7	50.8
65 to 69	.. not available for a specific reference period	.. not available for a specific reference period	20.6	25.9

Alternatively, some individuals sharing a home with both their adult children and their older parents may be the primary breadwinner in the household or providing financial support to both their children and their parents to some degree. Among adults aged 50 and over, employment rates were highest among persons representing the middle generation in multigenerational households. These differences were largest among persons approaching the typical ages of retirement: Among persons aged 60 to 64 in 2021, 60.4% of those representing the middle generation in a multigenerational household were employed, compared with 41.7% of those representing the oldest generation and 50.8% of persons in other living arrangements.

Relatively few multigenerational households are in low income

In 2021, the proportion of multigenerational households that were in low-income^Note  was lower (4.3%) than among other types of households (15.5%). As multigenerational households are larger on average than most households^Note  , their lesser incidence of low income relates in part to the economies of scale that exist in the relationship between household expenses and household size.^Note  The presence of older adults in multigenerational households—who may be eligible to receive income benefits such as Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement—may also contribute to lower instance of low-income status in these households.

Additionally, close to half (49.1%) of all multigenerational households had three or more members of the household earning employment income^Note  —more than quadruple the proportion in other households^Note  (11.0%). Having several earners in a household also means that more than one person could contribute to household expenses, lowering the financial burden on any one individual. That said, not all the earners in multigenerational households will necessarily contribute to household expenses or contribute equally. As a result, household total income may not accurately reflect the financial security nor the housing affordability of all household members (Gorski et al. 2025).

Crowded housing conditions are more prevalent among multigenerational households

Reflecting their lower incidence of household low income, multigenerational households have more affordable housing on average: 11.1% of multigenerational households in 2021 were below the housing affordability threshold^Note  , nearly half the rate observed among other households (20.8%) (Table 4).

In contrast, crowded housing was a greater challenge among multigenerational households. In 2021, 28.3% of multigenerational households were below the housing suitability threshold, meaning the dwelling did not have enough bedrooms for the size and composition of the household. The proportion of crowded housing among multigenerational households was more than six times higher than that of other households (4.7%). Most commonly, multigenerational households had a shortfall of one bedroom (18.5%), while 6.4% had a two-bedroom shortfall and 3.4% had a shortfall of three or more bedrooms.

Overall, despite the economies of scale and greater housing affordability that multigenerational living may offer, multigenerational households had lower rates of acceptable housing—that is, housing that is simultaneously adequate in condition, suitable in size and affordable—than other households, owing to their greater incidence of crowding. Additionally, a larger share of multigenerational households (5.9%) lived in housing considered unacceptable due to multiple factors—meaning the housing failed to meet more than one of the suitability, affordability, or adequacy thresholds—compared to other households (2.6%).

A household is in “core housing need” if it falls below at least one of the housing indicator thresholds—adequacy, affordability, or suitability—and would have to spend 30% or more of its total before-tax income to rent alternative local housing that meets all three housing indicator thresholds. Reflecting the fact that most multigenerational households had sufficient income to afford acceptable alternative local housing, fewer of them were in core housing need in 2021 than other types of households (4.6% and 10.3%, respectively).^Note 

Conclusion

As Canadian households continue to evolve, they are gradually moving away from the mid-20^th-century apex of one census family living alone in a dwelling. ^Note  Urbanization and housing densification have continued to grow alongside sustained high levels of international entrants, the rise of precarious work, the financialization of housing and related affordability and accessibility challenges, as well as generational wealth disparities. In this context, families are increasingly living—by choice or by circumstance—in alternative arrangements, including the 2.4 million individuals who lived in multigenerational households in 2021.

In this first examination of generational differences within Canada’s multigenerational households, it was found that the sociodemographic and economic characteristics of household members varied considerably depending on their position as the youngest, middle or oldest generation in the home. Findings suggest that for some individuals, sharing a home with multiple generations of their family is a cultural norm or preference. Others living in multigenerational households may seek out this living arrangement as a means of accessing support from family—to better manage the cost of living or raising a young child, or even to navigate necessary interactions outside of the home. As Canada’s population continues to experience high life expectancy and decreasing fertility, individuals may increasingly rely upon vertical family ties (generationally speaking) for support and companionship rather than horizontal ones.^Note 

Multigenerational households have unique housing characteristics. Most members of multigenerational households could theoretically afford to pay for alternative local housing that would be acceptable, but a substantial share nonetheless live in crowded conditions. As to why the members of these households may not move into alternative local housing that is acceptable, this may reflect preferences to a certain extent but is more likely indicative of general housing shortages or a shortage of housing supply geared toward their specific situation (e.g., with an adequate number of bedrooms). To reduce incidence of undesired crowding, the distinct housing design needs of persons living in multigenerational households could be considered in the development of supports and policies aimed at facilitating redevelopment of existing housing or future housing development.

This study was not able to examine concrete forms of caregiving and care receiving within multigenerational households. Across many countries, institutional care for older adults has become increasingly privatized and costly for individuals, and “ageing in place” —that is, continuing to live in one’s private household in older adulthood—is both publicly encouraged and desired by the Baby Boomers who are gradually entering this stage of life.^Note  The potential for multigenerational households to serve as a setting in which older adults can both receive and provide informal care is an important consideration for future research.

A limitation of this study is that the analysis was restricted to families who share a private dwelling. More and more families are seeking alternative forms of multigenerational living which offer greater privacy for each generation, such as secondary, laneway or garden suites—though they often meet zoning and other building challenges in this regard.^Note  Moreover, extended families who do not share a home but live in close geographic proximity to one another may function much like a multigenerational household in terms of exchanges of practical support and companionship.^Note  The prevalence and composition of these alternate forms of multigenerational exchange in Canada remain an important information gap.

Data sources, methods and definitions

For more information about trends in families, households and living arrangements, see the Families, households and marital status statistics portal on the Statistics Canada website.

This study is based on data from the 2021 Census of Population, and its main purpose is to enumerate the population. To ensure that individuals are counted only once in the census, people in private households are counted as residing at only one dwelling, and in only one household, by applying the concept of the "usual place of residence." In turn, census families are identified based on relationships among people who share a usual place of residence. A consequence of this approach to identifying families is that it may not fully reflect the complexity of family and household characteristics, especially for people who split their time between two or more residences. For more information on these considerations, see the appendix of the Families, Households and Marital Status Reference Guide, Census of Population, 2021.

Given that the non-binary population is small, data aggregation to a two-category gender variable is sometimes necessary to protect the confidentiality of responses provided. In these cases, individuals in the category "non-binary persons" are distributed into the other two gender categories. In this study, the category “women”" includes women, as well as some non-binary persons, and the category "men" includes men, as well as some non-binary persons.

Key concepts and definitions

The term generation can have different meanings depending on social phenomenon being examined. For example, a demographic generation is a group of people born within a specific range of years who have grown up in a shared social, economic or political context—such as the Millennial generation. Generation status can also be used in the context of immigration, e.g., a “second-generation Canadian” is someone who was born in Canada and has at least one parent born outside of Canada. In this study, the term “generation” refers to relationships within a family.

Multigenerational household refers to a household in which:

• there is at least one person who is both the grandparent of a person in the household and the parent of another person in the same household, or
• there is at least one person who is both the child of a person in the household and the grandchild of another person in the same household.

In a household consisting of a child, the child’s mother and the child’s grandmother, the child is considered the youngest generation, the child’s mother the middle generation and the grandmother the oldest generation. In households with four or more generations present, members of the multigenerational family who are neither the youngest nor the oldest generation are categorized as the middle generation.

Census family refers to a couple family (with or without children) or a one-parent family. The family members must share a usual place of residence (live in the same dwelling). Children may be biological or adopted children of any age, provided they do not have their own spouse, partner or child living in the same dwelling. Grandchildren living with their grandparent(s) and with no parents present also constitute a census family.

Child in a census family refers to a person of any age whose usual place of residence is the same dwelling as their parent(s), as well as to grandchildren living in households with grandparent(s) with no parents present. Individuals who are living with their married spouse or common-law partner, or with one or more of their own children, are not considered to be members of the census family of their parent(s), even if they are living in the same household.

Census family status of person refers to whether a person who is a member of a census family is a married spouse or common-law partner (with or without children), a parent in a one-parent family, or a child. Census family status is prioritized for the youngest generation in households with two-or-more generations of the same family. Table 5 provides two examples of how census families are formed based on the household relationships within multigenerational households, following the rule of prioritizing the youngest generation.

Family and household characteristics of person refers to the relationship between a person and the other members of their household. Specifically, emphasis is placed on whether they are a member of a census family— a couple family, with or without children, or a one-parent family—or if not in a census family, whether they are living with relatives, with non-relatives only, or alone.

References

Amorim, M. (2019). Are grandparents a blessing or a burden? Multigenerational coresidence and child-related spending. Social Science Research 80: 132-144.

Burgess, G. and Muir, K. (2019). The increase in multigenerational households in the UK: The motivations for and experiences of multigenerational living. Housing, Theory and Society 37(3): 322-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2019.1653360

Carpino, T. (2024). Prevalence of low income among persons in one-parent families headed by an immigrant parent: An intersectional analysis. Studies on Gender and Intersecting Identities. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 45200002.

Choi, K. H. and Ramaj, S. (2023). Multigenerational living and children’s risk of living in unaffordable housing: differences by ethnicity and parents’ marital status. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 49(13): 3267-3288. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2171974

Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. (2019). Inuit Nunangat Housing Strategy. Catalogue number R5-737/2019 E-PDF.

De Oliveira, M.C.G.M., Salmazo-Silva, H., Gomes, L., Moraes, C.F. and Alves, V.P. (2020). Elderly individuals in multigenerational households: Family composition, satisfaction with life and social involvement.  Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas), 37, e180081.

Di Gessa, G., Zaninotto, P. and Glaser, K. (2020). Looking after grandchildren: gender differences in ‘when,’ ‘what,’ and ‘why’: Evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Demographic Research 43(53): 1465-1482. DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2020.43.53

Drolet, M. and Rauh, K. (2024). Closing the gap? Assessing the labour market outcomes of unpartnered mothers in Canada. Insights on Canadian Society. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 75-006-X.

Easthope, H, Liu, E., Burnley, I. and Judd, B. (2016). Changing perceptions of family: A study of multigenerational households. Journal of Sociology 53(1): 182-200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783316635

Easthope, H. (2017).  The drivers of multigenerational households in Australia. Chapter 3 in Multigenerational Family Living: Evidence and Policy Implications from Australia. Routledge Advances in Sociology. Eds. E. Liu and H. Easthope. Routledge.

Ghosh, A.K., Venkatraman, S., Soroka, O., Reshetnyak, E.  et al. (2021). Association between overcrowded households, multigenerational households, and COVID-19: a cohort study. Public Health 198: 273-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2021.07.039

Goodbrand, P., Humphrey, T. and Gondek, J. (2017). Relatives or rentals? Secondary suites through a multigenerational family lens. The Canadian Geographer 61(4); 525-539. DOI: 10.1111/cag.12399

Gorski, A., Heisel, D. and Situ, J. (2025). Measuring unmet housing need and housing instability in households with roommates and extended family. Housing Statistics in Canada. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 46-28-0001.

He, W. and Jia, S. (2022). Exploring multigenerational co-residence in the United States. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis 17(1). DOI: 10.1108/IJHMA-06-2022-0089

Hertog, E. and Kan, M-Y. (2021). Married Adults Coresiding with Older Parents: Implications for Paid Work and Domestic Workloads. Journal of Population Ageing 14: 507-535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12062-021-09346-2

Hogendoorn, B. and Härkönen, J. (2023). Single Motherhood and Multigenerational Coresidence in Europe. Population and Development Review 49(1): 105-133. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12540

Kamiya, Y. and Hertog, S. (2020). Measuring household and living arrangements of older persons around the world: The United Nations Database on the Households and Living Arrangements of Older Persons 2019. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Technical Paper no. no. 2020/03.

Kragiannaki, E. and Burchardt, T. (2022). Living arrangements, intra-household inequality and children’s deprivation: Evidence from EU-SILC. Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, the London School of Economics and Political Science. CASE/227.

Lauster, N. and von Bergmann, J. (2025). The new rules: housing shortage as an explanation for family and household change across large metro areas in Canada,1981–2021. The History of the Family 1–30. DOI: 10.1080/1081602X.2024.2448986

Leopold, T. and Skopek, J. (2015). The demography of grandparenthood: An international profile. Social Forces 94(2): 801-832. doi: 10.1093/sf/sov066

Leopold, T., Becker, C.C., Buyukkececi, Z., Çineli, B. and Raab, M. (2024). KINMATRIX: A new data resource for studies of families and kinship. Demographic Research 51(25): 789-808.

Liu, E. (2017). Living with the extended family: Experiences and outcomes of living in multigenerational households. Chapter 5 in Multigenerational Family Living: Evidence and Policy Implications from Australia. Routledge Advances in Sociology. Eds. E. Liu and H. Easthope. Routledge.

Liu, E.  (2020). Ageing in multigenerational households: the case of Australia. Chapter 13 in Ageing in Place: Design, Planning and Policy Response in the Western Asia Pacific. Eds. B. Judd, K. Tanoue and E. Liu. Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788976091

Maroto, M. (2017). When the kids live at home: Coresidence, parental assets and economic insecurity. Journal of Marriage and Family 79(4): 1041-1059.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/26646129

Mazurik, K., Knudson, S. and Tanaka, Y. (2020). Stuck in the nest? A review of the literature on coresidence in Canada and the United States. Marriage and Family Review 56(6):  491-512.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2020.1728005

Mehdi, T. (2023). A cross-cohort comparison of the economic impact of divorce and widowhood on seniors. Economic and Social Reports. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 36-28-0001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/36280001202300400003-eng

Milan, A., Laflamme, N. and Wong, I. (2015). Diversity of grandparents living with their grandchildren. Insights on Canadian Society. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 75-006-X.

Minardi, S. (2025). Sociodemographic variation in family structures and geographic proximity between adult children and parents in Europe. Demographic Research 52(25): 849-868. DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2025.52.25

Mitchell, B.A. and Li, L. (2023). Diversity in Canadian families: Choices, constraints, and social policy dimensions.  Chapter 2 in The Changing Faces of Families: Diverse Family Forms in Various Policy Contexts. Eds: Marina A. Adler and Karl Lenz. Routledge Studies in Family Sociology. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group. DOI: 10.4324/9781003193500-2

Muennig, P., Jiao, B. and Singer, E. (2018). Living with parents or grandparents increases social capital and survival: 2014 General Social Survey-National Death Index. Social Science and Medicine – Population Health 4: 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2017.11.001

Park, S.S., Wiemers, E.E. and Seltzer, J.A. (2020). The family safety net of black and white multigenerational families. Population and Development Review 45(2): 351-378. doi:10.1111/padr.12233.

Pilkauskas, N.V., Amorim, M. and Dunifon, R.E. (2020). Historical trends in children living in multigenerational households in the United States: 1870-2018. Demography 57: 2269-2296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-020-00920-5

Statistics Canada (2017).  Census in Brief: Children with an immigrant background: Bridging cultures. Census in Brief. Statistics Canada catalogue number 98-200-X, issue 2016015.

Statistics Canada (2020). Family Matters: Family ties: How often do adult children see their parents? Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-627-M.

Statistics Canada (2022a). Home alone: More persons living solo than ever before, but roomies the fastest growing household type. The Daily. July 13, 2022.

Statistics Canada (2022b). Canada in 2041: A larger, more diverse population with greater differences between regions. The Daily. September 8, 2022.

Statistics Canada (2022c). In the midst of high job vacancies and historically low unemployment, Canada faces record retirements from an aging labour force: number of seniors aged 65 and older grows six times faster than children 0-14. The Daily. April 27, 2022.

Statistics Canada (2022d). Housing conditions among First Nations people, Métis and Inuit in Canada from the 2021 Census. Census in Brief. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 98-200-X, issue 2021007.

Statistics Canada (2022e). A generational portrait of Canada’s aging population from the 2021 Census. The Daily. April 27, 2022.

Statistics Canada (2022f). Disaggregated trends in poverty from the 2021 Census of Population. Census in Brief. Statistics Canada catalogue number 98-200-X, issue 2021009.

Statistics Canada (2023). Multilingualism of Canadian households. Census in Brief. Statistics Canada catalogue number 98-200-X, issue 2021014.

Tang, J., Galbraith, N. and Truong, J. (2019). Living alone in Canada. Insights on Canadian Society. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 75-006-X.

Verbist, G., Diris, R. and Vanderbroucke, F. (2020). Solidarity between generations in extended families: Old-age income as a way out of child poverty? European Sociological Review 36(2): 317-332. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcz052

Zhu, Y., Yuan, Y., Gu, J. and Fu, Q. (2023). Neoliberalization and inequality: Disparities in access to affordable housing in urban Canada 1871-2016. Housing Studies 38(10): 18660-1887. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2021.2004093