Will Disputes

Disinheriting Adult Children in British Columbia

Written on behalf of Meridian Law Group on April 14, 2026
Mourning adult children, three men and two women, rest their hands on a dark wood casket with one woman holding a bouquet of yellow an white flowers and the other holding a white rose, representing disinheriting a child.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Cusack v. Cusack offers important guidance on wills variation claims, particularly where an adult child has been intentionally disinherited.

The case illustrates the nuanced balance courts must strike between testamentary autonomy and a testator’s moral obligations to their children. It also highlights how long-standing estrangement, family dynamics, and personal history can influence whether a court will intervene to vary a will.

Ultimately, the Court declined to vary the will, finding that the deceased father had just cause to disinherit his daughter and that no enforceable moral obligation remained.

Family Estrangement and Disinheritance

The plaintiff sought to vary the will of her father, who passed away in October 2023. The deceased had three children. However, at the time of his death:

  • One child had predeceased him
  • The plaintiff daughter had been estranged from him for decades
  • The remaining son and grandson maintained a close relationship with him

Under the will:

  • The estate (valued at approximately $420,000) was divided between the son and grandson
  • Modest gifts were left to other family members
  • The plaintiff daughter received nothing

The will also included a written declaration explaining the testator’s intention to disinherit the plaintiff, citing long-term estrangement.

Wills Variation in British Columbia

In British Columbia, wills variation claims are governed by the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA), which allows courts to vary a will if it fails to make “adequate, just and equitable” provision for a spouse or child.

The governing framework is derived from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Tataryn v. Tataryn, which requires courts to assess the testator’s legal and moral obligations and whether the will reflects what a judicious parent would do in the circumstances.

Two-Step Analysis: Reasons and Moral Obligation

The Court applied the two-step framework clarified by the British Columbia Court of Appeal:

1. Are the Reasons for Disinheritance Valid and Rational?

The court first considers whether the testator’s reasons are factually true and logically connected to the decision to disinherit. This is assessed using a subjective standard.

2. Does a Moral Obligation Still Exist?

Even if the reasons are valid, the court must determine whether a moral obligation persists, based on contemporary societal expectations and the perspective of a reasonable, judicious parent. This is an objective analysis.

What Counts as “Estranged”?

A key issue was whether the plaintiff was truly estranged from her father. The plaintiff argued that she maintained limited contact, including occasional phone calls. However, the Court clarified that estrangement does not require a complete absence of contact. Instead, it involves a contextual assessment of the relationship.

The Court found that the parties had only minimal, infrequent communication and their relationship lacked meaningful connection. Further, the estrangement had lasted for decades. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the plaintiff was estranged from her father at the time of his death.

Validity of the Testator’s Reasons

The plaintiff argued that the estrangement stemmed from abuse and neglect during her childhood, and her father’s failure to accept responsibility for those issues. The Court acknowledged the plaintiff’s difficult childhood and that there was family conflict and some violence. Further, the Court accepted that the plaintiff’s parents’ relationship negatively affected the children.

However, the Court made several critical findings:

  • The plaintiff and her father reconciled as adults
  • The estrangement resumed after the plaintiff chose to live with her mother
  • The mother had a history of alienating the children from the father

The Court concluded that the estrangement in adulthood was largely influenced by the plaintiff’s mother and the plaintiff’s own choices. As a result, the testator’s reasons for disinheritance were found to be both factually valid and rational.

Assessing Moral Obligation

The Court then assessed whether a moral obligation remained using established factors, including:

  • Nature of the relationship
  • Size of the estate
  • Contributions by the claimant
  • Financial need
  • Competing claims

Relationship Between Parent and Child

While the plaintiff’s difficult childhood initially supported a moral claim, this was significantly weakened by the later reconciliation and the plaintiff’s decision to re-establish their estrangement. As a result, the Court found that this reduced any moral obligation.

Size of the Estate

Although modest, the estate was sufficient to provide a benefit. However, this factor alone was not determinative.

Contributions and Expectations

The plaintiff made no contributions to the estate and had no reasonable expectation of inheritance, given the long estrangement.

Financial Need

The plaintiff was on disability and had limited assets. This factor supported her claim, but it was not sufficient to outweigh other considerations.

Competing Claims

The Court found that the testator’s son had a stronger claim, based on the close and supportive relationship he had with his father. The testator also had a meaningful connection with his grandson. These competing claims weighed against varying the will.

“Just Cause” for Disinheritance

One of the most significant aspects of the decision is the Court’s finding that the testator had just cause to disinherit the plaintiff.

The Court emphasized that the plaintiff had reconciled with her father as an adult but later chose to become estranged again. That estrangement lasted over 30 years. In these circumstances, the Court held that the testator’s decision was justified and consistent with societal expectations.

As the Court stated, the prolonged estrangement negated the moral duty that might otherwise have existed.

Lessons for B.C. Testators and Beneficiaries

The Cusack case highlights several important points applicable to wills variation cases involving a child’s disinheritance:

  • Estrangement can justify disinheritance: Long-term estrangement, particularly where initiated or maintained by the claimant, can significantly weaken or eliminate a moral claim.
  • Limited contact does not prevent a finding of estrangement: Occasional communication does not necessarily defeat a finding of estrangement if the relationship lacks substance.
  • The decision to reconcile and become re-estranged matters: Where a parent and child reconcile and later become estranged again, courts may place significant weight on the later estrangement.
  • Financial need alone is not enough: Even where an adult child has financial need, this will not automatically justify varying a will.
  • Competing claims can be critical: Courts will weigh the strength of competing beneficiaries’ claims, particularly where they maintained meaningful relationships with the deceased.
  • Testamentary autonomy remains strong: While courts have authority to vary wills, they will not interfere unless the testator has failed to meet legal or moral obligations.

Meridian Law Group: Vancouver Estate Litigation Lawyers Advising on Disinheritance and Wills Variation Claims

If you have been disinherited or are concerned about a potential wills variation claim, experienced legal advice is essential. The estate litigation lawyers at Meridian Law Group advise clients on disinheritance disputes, will challenges under the WESA, executor obligations, and complex family-related estate conflicts. The firm proudly serves clients in B.C., across Canada, and internationally. Please call (604) 687-2277 or reach out online to schedule a confidential consultation in your estate litigation matter.