When French film icon and animal‑rights activist Brigitte Bardot died in late 2025, she left behind an estimated 65€ million estate and a very clear legacy: most of her wealth was meant to support Fondation Brigitte Bardot, the animal welfare foundation she created decades earlier. However, French law guarantees half of her estate to her independent adult son, even though they had largely been estranged from each other since 1962. What seems like a fair result for the son under France’s forced heirship rules would not generally be achievable through Ontario’s Succession Law Reform Act (the “SLRA“). While these two inheritance systems place similar limits on testamentary goals, the approach and scope of those limitations differ by system, with the result that testamentary goals could fail in one jurisdiction but succeed in another.
Forced Heirship in France: The Family Comes First
France operates under a civil‑law system rooted in Napoleonic principles. Central to this system is forced heirship (réserve héréditaire), which protects children from being disinherited. Under French law, a portion of a deceased person’s estate must pass to their children, regardless of what the will says.
The size of the mandatory share depends on how many children survive the deceased:
- One child: entitled to 50% of the estate
- Two children: entitled to two‑thirds
- Three or more children: entitled to three‑quarters
Only the remaining portion—the quotité disponible—can be freely left to others, including charities.
For Bardot, who had one son, this means that half of whatever remained in her estate at death must go to him, even though her will favoured her animal foundation. Bardot attempted to plan around these limits by transferring major assets to the foundation during her lifetime, including La Madrague, her famous Saint‑Tropez home, while retaining a right to live there. Those lifetime gifts are generally protected, but any assets still forming part of her estate are subject to the forced heirship rules. The result is a careful balancing act between personal intention and statutory entitlement.
Ontario’s Approach: Testamentary Freedom with a Safety Net
Ontario takes a markedly different approach. As a common‑law jurisdiction, Ontario places strong emphasis on testamentary freedom—the idea that individuals should be free to decide who inherits their property. In Ontario, adult, financially independent children have no automatic right to inherit. A parent can legally leave them nothing, even if that decision appears unfair or harsh.
This freedom is not unlimited, however. The SLRA steps in to protect dependants—certain family members who were financially reliant on the deceased at the time of death, which may include a surviving (common-law) spouse, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, or siblings who were being supported by the deceased at time of death. If a will fails to make “adequate provision” for such dependants, the court can order support from the estate.
Importantly, Ontario’s system is needs‑based, not entitlement‑based as in France. An independent adult child like Bardot’s son, lacking a need for financial assistance, would generally have no claim under the SLRA. As someone who was not receiving support from Bardot immediately before her death, the son would not fall under the SLRA‘s definition of “dependant”. By contrast, a financially dependent child or spouse could meet the definition of “dependant” and ask the court to make adequate provision from the estate for their proper support pursuant to the provisions of the SLRA.
Testamentary Freedom Implications
Bardot’s estate highlights how inheritance laws can significantly impact testamentary goals, even those that are of philanthropic nature.
In forced‑heirship jurisdictions like France, individuals who want to leave most of their wealth to a charity must plan carefully. The scope of the forced-heirship share of the estate can be significant. Lifetime gifts, charitable foundations, and other planning tools often become essential to achieving testamentary charitable aims.
In Ontario, charitable giving can be more straightforward for a wealthy estate. A testator can leave most—or even all—of their estate to charity, and the SLRA only intervenes if they are found not to have met their legal and moral obligations to their dependants. As there is no fixed share reserved for adult children, there is far greater flexibility in shaping a philanthropic legacy in Ontario.
Different Laws, Different Outcomes
Although both the France and Ontario inheritance systems place similar limits on testamentary goals, the ideologically different starting points can create different results. Bardot’s case is a powerful reminder that where you live—and where your assets are located—matters enormously in estate planning. France law emphasizes family entitlement, whereas Ontario law prioritizes individual choice tempered by social responsibility.
Had Brigitte Bardot’s estate been governed by Ontario law, the outcome could have been dramatically different. Her foundation might have inherited nearly everything, with no automatic entitlement for her adult son. In France, however, the law prioritizes family protection over personal autonomy, ensuring that children receive a guaranteed share, even at the expense of clearly expressed testamentary wishes.
It can be seen that understanding the local limits on testamentary freedom is essential for anyone hoping to leave a legacy that truly reflects their values.
Thanks for reading!
By Jordyn Sanford