Trevor Todd and Jackson Todd have over sixty years combined experience in handling wills variation claims
Cusack v Cusack 2026 BCSC 461 upheld the disinheritance of one of the decased’s three children by reason of her choice to be estranged from her father for thirty years due to her mother’s influence.
The plaintiff was one of three children who had a terrible childhood due to the acrimony between her parents and their alcoholism.
After her parents separation she continued to live with her mother who constantly spoke about what a terrible father she had.
After moving out of home the plaintiff despite the alienation reconciled with her father and appeaared to be forming a healthy relationship.
However the plaintiff moved back into living with her mother in around 1990 and thereafter largely as a result of her mother’s influence, the plaintiff broke off any relationship with her father for the next thirty years.
The other two children, both sons reconciled with their father and formed a strong relationship.One of the sons predeceased and the $420,000 estate was mostly divided between his son and his grandson with whom the deceased was very clsoe.
The plaintiff brought a S.60 Wills Variation claim that was dismissed by the court by reason of the daughters choice to be estranged from her father for the last thirty years of his life.
The plaintiff argued that she was not truly estranged from her father since she spoke to him once a year .
Estrangement:
The court stated:
Estrangement does not require zero contact between the parties. The determination of estrangement requires a contextual analysis. In this case the following overall factual matrix is important. Cheryl had a difficult childhood and was relatively distant from Cecil. This was followed by a period of alienation when the marriage broke down when Cheryl was 14, followed by a reconciliation as an adult, and then a prolonged period of what I would characterize as alienation following Cheryl’s decision to live with her mother as an adult. I say alienation because in my view Cheryl became angry and did not wish to have a relationship with her father based on conversations that she had with her mother, as an adult, about her father.
[14] Considering this issue within the context of this case, the fact that Cheryl and Cecil had perhaps yearly telephone communication does not alter the fact that they were estranged. I find that they were estranged at the time of Cecil’s death and in the years preceding his death.
Based on the written correspondence, I understand that Cheryl and Cecil reconciled after Cheryl became an adult and moved away from her mother. When Cheryl moved back to live with her mother, she became estranged from Cecil again. Given there were no significant events or explanation provided by Cheryl for why her views of her father changed after moving back in with her mother, I conclude that her mother’s pattern of alienating her children from her father continued, affected Cheryl’s relationship with Cecil, and resulted in their estrangement as adults.
[22] In my view, the reason for Cecil’s disinheritance is both factually valid and rational.
As an adult, Cheryl decided to live with her mother and cease contact with her father, after they had reconciled, leading to a prolonged estrangement. In my view, this is a factor that reduces the moral obligation owed to Cheryl by Cecil.
Cecil disinherited Cheryl because as an adult, she chose to become estranged from him. This estrangement arose from the influence of her mother. My conclusions on this issue might be different if Cheryl had not reconciled with Cecil as an adult and then chose to live with her mother and estrange him. Given that she was able to overcome her childhood difficulties and reconcile with Cecil, and then as an adult, elected to become estranged from Cecil, provide “just cause” for Cecil’s decision to disinherit her.
In my view, the first central question to consider is whether Cecil’s disposition to Cheryl is in accordance with society’s reasonable expectations of what a judicious parent would do in the circumstances. In my view, given all of the circumstances that I have reviewed, the fact that Cheryl reconciled with Cecil and then chose to be estranged from him for over 30 years negates the moral duty that would otherwise have been owed to her. Cecil had just cause to disinherit her and did so.
