DISINHERITED DAUGHTERS
We will not be silent.
I have a balanced understanding of culture, customs, and the courtroom.
The problem.
With culture comes long-standing customs.
In some cultures, one tradition unfortunately results in disinheriting women. In short, parents draft Wills where the bulk of an estate (often, all of it) is left solely for their sons.
This, of course, presents issues; for example:
misogyny runs inherent in this tradition marginalizing a women’s place in the family dynamic and their rights to make choices; and
the division of great wealth can result in the will-maker’s son living in prosperity, and daughter living in poverty.
This custom originated outside of Canada and at a time where estates were worth little. Nowadays, particularly in BC, estates tend to be worth much, much more. In considering BC home prices alone, daughters are being disinherited by millions of dollars.
Seminal examples include the cases of Lam v Law Estate, 2024 BCSC 1561 (outlined below), Grewal v. Litt, 2019 BCSC 1154 (outlined below) and Parkash and Singh et al, 2006 BCSC 1545.
What this means.
If you are a daughter, have been disinherited, and left with little-to-nothing, please know that you have legal rights. What may be happening to you, has happened before. The Courts have considered cultural customs and have disagreed with tradition. Instead, the Courts have agreed with you.
How we can help.
Trust, you are not alone; it all begins with a call or email.
We are estate experts with over 50 years of collective litigation/trial experience.
We do our best to negotiate and resolve matters efficiently and cost-effectively. In the event we proceed to trial, we are always prepared.
Ultimately, we are here for you.
In this case, an east Asian BC woman successfully contested her mother’s will after discovering that her brother, the only son, had inherited the majority of the family’s wealth.
Cases such as Lam, highlight the gender bias that can influence inheritance decisions.
Under the original will, Ginny received a significantly smaller portion—approximately $170,000—while her brother was left with over $2.9 million. Justice Maria Morellato stated that the division was rooted in the mother’s preference for her son, which was influenced by her gender-based biases and customs.
Read that again: the son was left $2.9 million and the daughter, $170,000.
"The mother’s preference for her son was based on traditional views about gender roles” the judge wrote. In the reasons, the judge declared as follows:
[199] I have found that Ginny and William’s mother held a gender-based bias that resulted in William receiving most of his mother’s assets. This bias influenced and shaped the disposition of the mother’s assets, not only through the gifts she gave Ginny and William during her lifetime, but was also reflected in her 2018 Will. While perhaps a common view and standard in ages past, such inequitable treatment is not aligned with contemporary societal standards…
“Such inequitable treatment is not aligned with contemporary societal standards…”
[200] I am satisfied that an adequate, just and equitable distribution would provide Ginny with 85% of the East 18th Property. I am aware that this increase in Ginny’s half-share under the 2018 Will still pales in comparison to the total value of all the gifts and benefits William received from their mother during her lifetime. However, I find the circumstances before me do not justify varying the 2018 Will to the extent that William receives no interest in the East 18th Property at all. William was a dedicated and helpful son, and this factor must also be weighed in the balance.
In this case, the mother and father (the “Parents”) had six (6) children: two (2) boys and four (4) girls. When the Parents both passed, their estate was worth approximately nine million dollars ($9 million). Unfortunately, the Parents’ Will divided the property as follows: $150,000 to each daughter (totaling $600,000), and the residue of the estate to be divided equally to the sons (approximately $4.2 million for each son). Yes – you may need to read that again:
each son was entitled to $4.2 million and each daughter, $150,000.
The Daughters’ argued that the Parents impermissibly preferred their sons over their daughters in the Will, and therefore failed in their moral duty to the Daughters, which was to treat all Siblings equally. They stated that such favouritism is not a valid or acceptable reason for disinheritance or (in this case) unequal distribution and is contrary to public policy. In essence, the Daughters argued that, in the circumstances, no weight should be given to the Parents’ testamentary autonomy because their reasons are tainted by unacceptable prejudice and discrimination against daughters in favour of sons.
In her ruling, Madam Justice Adair ruled in favour of the Daughters varying the Will to divide the $9 million estate. Ultimately, the daughters received 15% of the estate each, whereby the sons’ received 20% each, respectively.
