Quick answer: A parent in BC has no legal duty to leave anything to an independent adult child, but the court recognizes a moral duty. Under section 60 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, an adult child can ask the court to vary a will that fails to make adequate provision. That moral duty can be reduced or defeated by valid and rational reasons for disinheritance — reasons grounded in fact and logically connected to the decision.
Circumstances where a moral obligation may exist
In Landy v. Landy Estate, (1991) 60 B.C.L.R (2d) 282 (C.A.), the court said yes – a parent may have a moral obligation to include an adult child in his or her will.
Some examples of circumstances which bring forth a moral obligation on the part of parent to leave an inheritance to an adult children are: a disability on the part of an adult child; an assured expectation on the part of an adult child; or an implied expectation on the part of an adult child, arising from the size of the parent’s estate or from the adult child’s treatment during the parent’s lifetime.
The situation in Landy
William and Emily Landy had one child, Larry, who was born in 1933. Emily died in 1967. William married his second wife, Amy, in 1972, when William was 73 and Amy was 62. Amy had her own assets from her first marriage. William and Amy kept their assets and financial affairs separate.
William died in 1988 leaving an estate valued at approximately $160,000. By the terms of William’s will, prepared in 1978, Larry received only $10,000. The rest of the estate went to Amy.
Amy, who had been very ill for many years, died one year after William, leaving her own estate of approximately $81,000 (not including what William left to her). By the terms of Amy’s will, her estate went to her biological children from her first marriage. Larry was not a beneficiary of Amy’s will.
Court decides moral obligation supports a larger share of estate for adult child
Larry brought action seeking a larger share of his father’s estate. The task for the court was to decide whether William made adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of his adult child by leaving him a bequest of $10,000 out of an estate of approximately $160,000.
The court decided that the William had a moral obligation to make greater provision for Larry than he did, and increased the bequest to $60,000.
Factors important to the parent’s moral obligation to his adult child in Landy
In Landy, the following factors were important to the determination that the parent had a moral obligation to leave a larger share of his estate to his adult son:
- Larry had an expectation that he would inherit a portion of his father’s estate. On a number of occasions Larry asked if his father’s affairs were in order and William would reply: “Don’t worry, you will be taken care of.”
- Larry had worked many hours without pay in helping to construct the building used to operate his father’s business. It was the sale of that property and business in the 1960s which enabled William to build his estate.
- Most of William’s estate was accumulated before he married his second wife, Amy.
- Larry was a dutiful son. There was evidence that he provided a lot of assistance to his father, with respect to his father’s business and to his father personally. On many occasions, Larry was summoned by his father to deal with minor family crises at all hours of the day and night. Larry willingly performed these family duties to the end.
- At the time of William’s death Amy had her own estate of considerable size. William was aware of her income and expenses over the 16 years of their marriage and of the increase in the size of her estate through her savings.
- At the time of William’s death it was reasonably foreseeable that Amy’s life expectancy was limited. She was elderly and had been ill for many years. The combined effect of William’s will and of Amy’s will is that Amy’s five biological children would receive by far the major share of William’s estate, even though her five children had no moral entitlement to a share in William’s estate.
Take home point on the moral obligation of a parent to an adult child
A parent may have a moral obligation to leave an inheritance to an adult child. Whether an adult child has a moral claim to a share of a parent’s estate will depend on factors such as the quality of the relationship between the parent and child, expectations of the child based on assurances from the parent, the size of the estate, and any assistance by the child in building the estate.
Where the moral obligation sits in current BC law
The moral obligation to an adult child now lives inside section 60 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA), which replaced the former Wills Variation Act in 2014. The test is the same idea the courts have applied for decades: a will-maker who fails to make adequate provision for a child can have the will varied so the provision is “adequate, just and equitable in the circumstances.”
The framework comes from Tataryn v. Tataryn Estate, [1994] 2 SCR 807, which sorts a will-maker’s duties into two kinds. An adult independent child is owed a moral obligation but not a legal one — there is no support duty the law would otherwise impose on a parent toward a grown, self-supporting child. That is the key difference from a spouse’s claim, and it is why an adult child’s claim is real but more easily displaced.
The other side: valid and rational reasons to disinherit
A moral obligation is not a guarantee. A will-maker’s reasons for leaving an adult child less, or nothing, can reduce or defeat the claim where those reasons are both valid and rational — a distinction drawn in the line of cases following Kelly v. Baker. “Valid” means the reason is based in fact, not on a mistaken belief or something invented. “Rational” means there is a logical connection between the reason and the decision to disinherit.
Estrangement, the child’s past conduct, and gifts already made to the child during the parent’s lifetime are all relevant. A parent who documents genuine, fact-based reasons — in the will or a separate memorandum — gives the estate something to stand on. A bare statement of dislike, or a reason that turns out to be factually wrong, tends not to survive scrutiny, which is what happened where courts found the stated reason was not supported by the evidence.
What tends to strengthen or weaken an adult child’s claim
- Strengthens the claim: a large estate with few competing claims, an expectation of inheritance the parent encouraged, contributions the child made to building the estate, disability or genuine financial need, and a maintained relationship.
- Weakens the claim: long estrangement the child caused, substantial gifts already received, valid and rational written reasons for the reduced share, and adequate provision already made through assets passing outside the will.
The deadline that ends the claim
An adult child who wants to advance a claim has to move quickly. Under WESA section 61, a variation action must be commenced within 180 days of the date the grant of probate or administration is issued, and served within a further 30 days. After that window closes, the will generally stands. For related reading, see our posts on unequal division of an estate in a will and leaving your estate to friends.
Frequently asked questions
Does a parent have to leave anything to an adult child in BC?
There is no legal duty to leave an independent adult child a share of the estate, but the court recognizes a moral obligation. Under section 60 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, an adult child can apply to vary a will that fails to make adequate provision, and the court decides what is adequate, just and equitable in the circumstances.
Can a parent disinherit an adult child in BC?
Yes, but it can be challenged. An adult child can bring a wills variation claim, and the disinheritance will hold only if the parent’s reasons were valid and rational. Valid means based in fact, and rational means logically connected to the decision. Reasons that are factually wrong or unconnected to the choice tend not to survive.
What reasons justify leaving an adult child less?
Estrangement caused by the child, the child’s past conduct, and substantial gifts already made during the parent’s lifetime are all relevant and can reduce or defeat a claim. The reasons work best when they are written down and grounded in fact, so the estate can show the court why the parent made the decision.
What is the difference between a legal and a moral obligation to a child?
A legal obligation is a duty the law would impose regardless, which does not apply to a self-supporting adult child. A moral obligation is society’s reasonable expectation of what a judicious parent would do. An adult independent child is owed a moral duty but not a legal one, which is why the claim is real but more easily displaced than a spouse’s.
How long does an adult child have to challenge a parent’s will?
Under section 61 of WESA, the claim must be started within 180 days of the date the grant of probate or administration is issued, and served within a further 30 days. After that window closes, the will generally stands as written.
Disclaimer: This page is general legal information about British Columbia law, not legal advice for any particular situation. Reading it does not create a solicitor-client relationship. BC estate law changes, and the outcome of any wills variation claim depends on facts not covered here. For advice on your own situation, speak with a qualified British Columbia estate lawyer.