Cusack v. Cusack: Adult Estrangement and the Limits of Wills Variation in BC

2026 BCSC 461 | BC Supreme Court | Justice Thomas | Summary Trial | 2 days

Can a parent in British Columbia disinherit an estranged adult child? 

In Cusack v. Cusack, 2026 BCSC 461, the BC Supreme Court answered yes – dismissing a wills variation claim by an adult daughter who had been excluded from her father’s $420,000 estate after more than 30 years of estrangement. The decision is a useful illustration of when “just cause” for disinheritance will negate a child’s moral claim under s. 60 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA).

Background: The Estate and the Parties

Cecil Cusack died on October 2, 2023, leaving a residuary estate of approximately $420,000. His will, made just two months before his death, gave $10,000 each to his grandson Devon and his son Lane’s common law spouse, with the residue split equally between Lane and Devon. His daughter Cheryl, age 56, received nothing.

Cecil attached a sworn declaration to his will expressly stating his reasons: he had been estranged from Cheryl since 1992 and a letter he sent attempting to reconcile approximately a decade earlier (2015) had gone unanswered.

The family background is complicated. Cecil and his wife Lola had a difficult marriage marked by excessive drinking and family violence. After their divorce in the early 1980s (when Cheryl was around 14) Lola had sole parenting responsibility and, on the court’s findings, actively alienated all three children from Cecil. Cheryl had a harder childhood than her brothers and was more distant from her father.

As a young adult, Cheryl reconciled with Cecil and they were building a healthy relationship. However, that changed around 1990 when Cheryl moved back in with Lola. The estrangement that followed lasted over 30 years. Cecil and Cheryl had sporadic telephone contact (roughly once a year) but Cecil’s written attempts to reconnect were ultimately unsuccessful. The letter he sent to Cheryl in 2015 was returned to him unopened.

Cecil maintained a close relationship with his son Lane and Lane’s son Devon, both of whom are primary beneficiaries under the will.

Procedural Note

This matter proceeded by summary trial — decided on affidavit and documentary evidence rather than live testimony. Both parties agreed the format was appropriate, and Justice Thomas concurred. Given the amount of time that had passed and the ages of the children when key events occurred, cross-examination of witnesses would have added little. The hearing took two days.

The Legal Framework for Wills Variation in BC

Under s. 60 of WESA, a court may vary a will that fails to make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of a testator’s spouse or children. The governing standard, established in Tataryn v. Tataryn Estate, [1994] 2 SCR 807, asks objectively what a judicious parent, acting in accordance with contemporary legal and moral norms, would have done.

Justice Thomas applied the two-part test from Tom v. Tang, 2023 BCCA 221 for evaluating a testator’s stated reasons for disinheritance:

1. Are the reasons factually valid (true) and rational (logically connected to the disinheritance)? – assessed subjectively from the will-maker’s perspective; and
2. On the totality of the evidence, does a moral obligation to provide for the claimant nonetheless remain? – assessed objectively against the standard of a judicious parent.

The court then applied the Dunsdon v. Dunsdon, 2012 BCSC 1274 factor framework to assess the strength of Cheryl’s moral claim.

Key Findings

Estrangement does not require zero contact. Cheryl argued that roughly annual phone calls meant she and Cecil were not truly estranged. The court rejected this, finding that estrangement under WESA is assessed contextually, not by counting contacts. On the overall factual matrix, the court found they were estranged at the time of Cecil’s death and for many years preceding it.

Cecil’s reasons were valid and rational. Cheryl alleged that Cecil bore significant responsibility for her difficult childhood – including physical and emotional abuse, neglect, absence, and dismissiveness of her Indigenous heritage. The court accepted one incident of Cecil slapping Cheryl and found there was family violence between Cecil and Lola. However, it did not accept the broader characterization, noting that Cecil had successfully maintained close adult relationships with his other children.

Cecil’s own letters, entered into evidence, were significant in this regard. Writing to Cheryl in November 2014, he acknowledged the conflicts she had witnessed as a child but pushed back on her account: he told her she had arrived in the middle of those conflicts and drawn conclusions from what she saw and was told. In a follow-up letter in 2016, he described a 2015 phone call in which Cheryl cited his violence as the reason for their estrangement. His response was that he had slapped her once in her entire life. When he challenged her to identify any other incident, she could not. 

Cecil subsequently obtained Cheryl’s mailing address and sent her a written explanation. She returned it unopened.

The adult estrangement was the decisive factor. The court found that Cheryl’s estrangement as an adult resulted from Lola’s continuing pattern of alienation – not from any conduct by Cecil. The absence of any significant event or explanation for why Cheryl’s views of her father changed after moving back in with her mother was telling. Critically, Cheryl had already demonstrated she could overcome the difficulties of her childhood by reconciling with Cecil as a young adult. Her subsequent choice to become estranged again provided just cause for the disinheritance.

The Dunsdon factors on balance did not support variation. While Cheryl’s disability and modest financial circumstances weighed in her favour, these were outweighed by the length and nature of the estrangement, her failure to disclose full financial information, the absence of any contributions to the estate, and Lane’s significantly stronger competing claim given his close adult relationship with Cecil.

The Decision

The wills variation claim was dismissed. Justice Thomas found that Cheryl’s choice to be estranged from Cecil for over 30 years as an adult, after having reconciled with him, negated the moral duty that would otherwise have been owed under WESA. Cecil had just cause to disinherit her and his testamentary autonomy was upheld.

Key Takeaways for Estate Planning and Litigation in BC

• Prolonged adult estrangement, particularly where it arises from the claimant’s own choices, can constitute just cause for disinheritance and negate a child’s moral claim under WESA s. 60.
• Estrangement is assessed contextually – minimal contact does not automatically preclude a finding of estrangement in a BC wills variation claim.
• A will-maker’s reasons for disinheritance are assessed subjectively for validity and rationality, but the overall question of moral obligation remains objective.
• A prior reconciliation that the claimant subsequently abandoned weighs against the strength of a wills variation claim.

Have You Been Disinherited?

If you have been excluded from a parent’s estate, the outcome in Cusack v. Cusack may feel discouraging – but every estrangement has two sides, and courts recognize that. The reasons a will-maker gives for disinheritance are not taken at face value; they are tested against the full factual record, including the claimant’s own account of the relationship. Wills variation claims are intensely fact-specific, and the weight given to estrangement will depend on its length, its causes, and who bears responsibility for it. If you believe you were wrongly excluded from a loved one’s estate, we encourage you to speak with one of our estate lawyers. An initial consultation can help you understand whether you have a claim worth pursuing.