How to Discuss Inheritance With Your Adult Children

A father of three in Saskatoon decides his middle child should get the family cabin at Pike Lake — she is the only one who has consistently spent time there since the grandchildren were born, and she has been quietly paying the property taxes for the past four years. He leaves the rest of the estate split three ways. He does not mention the cabin allocation to any of his children while alive, partly because the conversation feels awkward and partly because he hopes the reasoning will be obvious at the time. After his death, his other two adult children read the will and immediately interpret the cabin bequest as favouritism. The probate goes through. The middle child keeps the cabin. The three siblings have not spoken to each other for the eighteen months since. Same outcome, very different family — driven by a conversation the father chose not to have.

This is the inheritance-conversation problem that most Canadian families lose more on than they save. The will is technically clear. The reasoning behind it is not. The children fill in the gaps with the least charitable interpretation, and the family relationship pays the price.

The point of this guide is to give you a practical script — what to share, what to keep private, when to do it, and how to handle the harder conversations (uneven distributions, charitable bequests, potentially difficult children). Most of it is etiquette rather than law, but the law sets the boundaries we work within.

We will walk timing, what to share, what to keep private, the executor disclosure, the uneven-distribution conversation, the charitable-bequest conversation, the parent's letter, and the protective steps for wills that might be challenged.

Timing — later than you think, earlier than you fear #

The most common Canadian pattern is to never have the conversation. The second most common is to have a single rushed version of it in the parent's late 70s, after a health scare. The version that tends to work best is staged across the parent's late 60s and 70s — once the plan has stabilised but well before any cognitive concern.

Three timing markers most Canadian estate planners use as cues:

• The youngest child is in their thirties. Before that, the parent's plan typically changes too often (new grandchildren, new properties, new pensions) for the conversation to land permanently.
• The parent has either retired or is within five years of retirement. Most major asset decisions stabilise around this point — the home is paid off (or not), the pensions are in pay (or about to be), the executor has been chosen.
• The parents have signed (and updated) the current set of documents — will, Power of Attorney for Property, Power of Attorney for Personal Care, beneficiary designations. Having something concrete to share is better than describing intent that has not been documented.

Once those markers are in place, the staged conversation tends to work better than a single big reveal.

What to share, what to keep private #

A useful default — share the structure, keep the dollar figures private.

Share:

• Who is named as executor, and whether the executor knows. The executor will need to find the will and the financial records quickly; surprise appointments produce avoidable delay.
• Who is named as alternate executor in case the primary cannot serve.
• For families with minor grandchildren — who is named as guardian, and the reasoning behind that choice.
• The broad shape of the estate distribution. "Your mother and I are leaving everything to each other on the first death, and then dividing the residue equally between the three of you, with the cabin going to your sister specifically. Here's why."
• Any major charitable bequests, especially those large enough to materially affect the children's inheritance.
• Where the physical documents live and who the family lawyer is (if any).

Keep private:

• Exact dollar figures of the estate's current value. These change month to month and create expectations that calcify even as the underlying numbers shift.
• The exact contents of the parent's letter (if one exists), beyond its existence.
• Decisions that are still being weighed — sharing tentative plans tends to lock the parent into them prematurely.

The structure-without-numbers approach generally produces the alignment families want (no surprises about who is executor, no shock about uneven distributions) without the side effect of children calibrating their financial lives to a number that may change.

The executor disclosure conversation #

This one is generally easier to have first because it is more practical than emotional. The executor needs to know:

• That they are named.
• Where the will is physically located.
• Where the practical documents (account list, advisor contacts, insurance policies) are.
• The names of any alternate executors who could be approached if needed.

Most Canadian executors are surprised by the appointment because the parent never raised it directly. The appointment is generally easier on everyone — including the parent — if the executor has time to ask questions while the parent can still answer them. See our piece on telling your executor about your will for the broader logic.

If the executor declines or expresses doubt, that is useful information for the parent to know in time to choose an alternate. Most well-drafted wills include an alternate, but the alternate also needs to know they are the alternate.

The uneven-distribution conversation #

This is the harder one, and the one most families avoid until it is too late. A few patterns that work better than the default:

• In person, with the reasoning explicit. A child who is told in conversation, while the parent is alive, that the cabin is going to a sibling because that sibling has been paying property taxes for four years generally accepts the outcome. The same child who reads the same outcome in the will after the parent's death, with no explanation attached, generally does not.
• Frame it around the asset, not the child. "We're leaving the cabin to Sarah because she uses it most" reads better than "We're leaving more to Sarah." The first is a property-allocation statement; the second is a comparative-worth statement.
• Acknowledge the unevenness directly rather than hoping it goes unnoticed. The other children will notice. The conversation that names it tends to land better than the conversation that dances around it.
• Include a written letter from the parent alongside the will (see "the parent's letter" below). The letter does not have to be long; a few paragraphs explaining the reasoning protects the parent's voice in the conversation that happens after they are gone.

The most common Canadian failure mode is the parent who decides on the uneven distribution years before death, never mentions it, and assumes the reasoning will be obvious. It rarely is.

The charitable-bequest conversation #

Charitable bequests that materially reduce a child's inheritance are the single most common trigger for will challenges in Canada. The parent's intention is generally clear; the children's reaction to the result rarely is. Our piece on charitable bequests in Canadian wills walks the structural side; the conversation side is simpler:

• Tell the children that a major charitable bequest exists, and why. A long association with a hospital, gratitude for medical care, a religious commitment — the reasoning matters more than the dollar amount.
• Distinguish the charitable bequest from the children's inheritance — "we're leaving 15% of the estate to St Michael's Hospital, and the residue splits between the three of you" is clearer than "we're leaving most of it to you."
• If the bequest is large enough to be controversial, the parent's voice — captured in a letter or a video — is the protective record.

The Income Tax Act treats charitable bequests favourably, with the donation tax credit applied on the deceased's final return.^[5] The tax mechanics are not the issue families fight about; the unanticipated reduction in inheritance is.

The parent's letter #

A "letter of wishes" or "parent's letter" is a non-binding document that sits alongside the will and captures the parent's reasoning, values, and any non-legal wishes. It is not part of the will itself; it does not have to be witnessed or probated; it does not bind the executor. It exists as a record of voice.

Useful content for a parent's letter:

• Why specific bequests were made the way they were.
• Why a specific person was chosen as executor or guardian.
• Personal messages to children, grandchildren, or other family members.
• Funeral and burial preferences (the will is generally not the right place for these — see our pieces on funeral pre-planning).
• Any non-binding wishes for how heirlooms should be passed on or used.

The letter is generally drafted by the parent themselves, in their own words. A lawyer-drafted letter loses much of its protective effect. The letter should be stored with the will and referenced in the will (so the executor knows to look for it).

Protecting against a contested will #

If one child is significantly more likely than the others to challenge the will, the parent generally has a few protective options:

• Document capacity at the time of signing. A contemporaneous note from the parent's lawyer (or a family doctor) attesting to the parent's capacity helps defeat a later "suspicious circumstances" challenge. The legal test for testamentary capacity in Canada follows the framework set out in Banks v. Goodfellow^[4] and reaffirmed in Vout v. Hay.^[3]
• Avoid a complete disinheritance of a likely challenger. A complete disinheritance is easier to characterise as a mistake or as undue influence than a smaller, deliberately documented share. A token bequest with reasoning often deflects a challenge.
• Use a no-contest clause in some provinces. The clause forfeits a beneficiary's share if they contest the will. The effect is limited in Canada — courts will not enforce a no-contest clause against a probable-grounds challenge — but it has some deterrent value. See our piece on no-contest clauses in Canada for the structural detail.
• Acknowledge dependants. Most provinces have dependants'-relief legislation — Ontario's Succession Law Reform Act, Part V,^[1] BC's wills variation under the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, section 60^[2] — that lets a financially dependent family member challenge a will that leaves them inadequately provided for. A will that quietly acknowledges any such dependency is much harder to attack.

A staged conversation playbook #

If you want a single-page sequence:

1. Conversation 1 (15-20 minutes, in person). The executor disclosure. Who is named, where the will is, broad shape of the plan.
2. Conversation 2 (45-60 minutes, weeks later). The asset allocation. Which child gets what, the reasoning for any uneven distributions, the charitable bequests if any.
3. Conversation 3 (with the spouse or partner, separately if helpful). Specific items — heirlooms, family records, personal effects — and any non-financial messages the parent wants to share.
4. The parent's letter. Drafted by the parent, stored with the will, referenced by name in the will.
5. An annual checkpoint. A short conversation each year to flag any changes (new grandchild, new asset, new health information).

Three short conversations across a year tend to land better than one long one because they let the children process between sessions and bring questions back.

What we focus on at It's Simple Will #

It's Simple Will captures the structural side of the plan — the will, the executor and guardian choices, the specific bequests, and (in the Life Discovery Kit) the practical "where is everything" map the family will need. The conversations are personal work no app can do for you. Our companion pieces on talking to aging parents about estate planning and estate planning for sandwich-generation Canadians walk the related conversations.

The single most useful action for most Canadian families is the first short conversation — the executor disclosure — because it is the easiest and the highest-leverage. Once the children know who is named, where the documents are, and the broad shape of the plan, the rest of the conversations tend to happen more naturally as the parent grows older and the plan stabilises. The cost of the first conversation is twenty minutes of mild awkwardness. The cost of skipping it is generally borne by the family relationship years later.