Two Education Savings Plans, One Grandchild, No Overlap

The situation

What worried Hieu was not a letter from the government or an audit notice. It was the picture of his son, a few years from now, standing at a university registrar's office with a tuition bill due and no way to access the money that was supposed to be sitting ready for exactly that moment. Hieu had moved to Canada with his family and settled in Whitby, working as a physiotherapist while he rebuilt his practice and his credentials in a new country. He was filing his first Canadian tax return that year, working with our office on the broader newcomer filing, when the subject of his son's education savings came up almost as an afterthought. It was Hieu's wife, Lindita, an accountant by training, who first flagged that the numbers deserved a closer look; she had glanced at the plan statements while helping Hieu organize the family's paperwork for the newcomer filing and thought the combined total looked higher than she would have expected for a single grandchild.

Before the family emigrated, Hieu's father, Quang, had opened a registered education savings plan for his grandson, contributing steadily for several years as a way of supporting the family from abroad and staying connected to his grandson's future even at a distance. After the family settled in Whitby, Hieu opened his own registered education savings plan for the same child, not realizing his father's plan was still active and still receiving contributions. Both plans were legitimate, both were funded with real money set aside for the same purpose, and neither Hieu nor Quang had done anything wrong in opening them. The problem was that neither plan administrator knew about the other.

A registered education savings plan allows a lifetime contribution limit to be set for each child, regardless of how many separate plans are opened or by whom. A grandparent, a parent, and even an aunt or uncle can each open a plan for the same child, and the government grant that supplements contributions can flow into any of them, but the combined contributions across all plans for that child cannot exceed the single lifetime limit. Exceed it, even unintentionally, and a penalty tax applies to the excess, calculated monthly until it is withdrawn.

Prompted by Lindita's question, Hieu raised his own plan's balance with his father during a video call, and Quang mentioned the running total in his own account almost in passing. Neither figure alone looked alarming. Added together, run against the number of years both plans had been contributing, the combined total was close enough to the lifetime limit that a single additional year of contributions from either side could push the family over it.

The complication

The legal and administrative fix here was straightforward once the numbers were confirmed: coordinate the two plans so combined contributions stayed under the lifetime limit, and if they had already gone over, arrange for the excess to be withdrawn before the penalty tax accrued for another month. Neither plan administrator could see the other's records, so nothing about the overlap would have surfaced on its own until a contribution actually pushed the family past the limit and a penalty notice followed.

The complication was that the practical fix Hieu and Quang actually needed was not a legal one at all. It was a conversation. Quang, having contributed faithfully for years from overseas, was reluctant to reduce or pause his contributions, seeing it as pulling back on a commitment to his grandson. Hieu, newly arrived and still finding his financial footing in Whitby, did not want to ask his father to stop contributing, but also did not want to be the one whose own plan tipped the family over a limit that would trigger a penalty on money meant entirely for his son's benefit. The two men had not actually discussed, in concrete numbers, how much each was contributing or what the combined total looked like against the government's lifetime cap.

Our role was not to negotiate between them, but the legal work only mattered once that family conversation happened, because any coordination plan we built depended on both plans' administrators receiving accurate, current instructions from both contributors. If Hieu and Quang could not agree on how to split future contributions, no amount of technical structuring would prevent the overlap from recurring the following year.

There was also a timing pressure specific to registered education savings plans that made this more than a background concern, though not the one either man had assumed. Unused grant room does carry forward, so a family who fell behind in earlier years is not simply out of luck, but only a capped amount of grant can be claimed in any single year, which means catching up after a pause takes more than one year to finish. Eligibility also has a hard stop: it ends after the year the child turns seventeen, with additional conditions that have to be met before then for a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old to still qualify. The fix needed to protect both the contribution limit and the family's ability to actually use whatever grant room remained before that window closed, not trade one for the other.

What we did

1. Requested statements from both plan administrators to establish the true combined total. Contribution figures reported informally by family members are not reliable enough to plan around, so we obtained the official cumulative contribution history from both Quang's plan and Hieu's plan, confirming the exact combined figure against the child's lifetime limit rather than working from memory or approximation, with Lindita helping assemble the paperwork on Hieu's side given her comfort with financial records.
2. Calculated the remaining contribution room and the grant room separately. These are two different numbers governed by two different rules, and confusing them is a common source of family disputes over education savings plans. We set out, in plain terms, how much total contribution room remained before the lifetime limit, and separately, how much unclaimed grant room had carried forward from earlier years and how much of it could actually be claimed this year under the annual cap, so both Hieu and Quang understood what was actually at stake in each category.
3. Facilitated a structured conversation between Hieu and Quang about future contributions. Rather than leaving the two men to work it out informally, we scheduled a call where we presented the numbers plainly, explained what an overcontribution penalty would cost against how much longer it would take to catch up on grant room if contributions paused given the annual cap on claiming it, and let father and son reach their own decision about how to split the remaining room between the two plans going forward.
4. Confirmed no overcontribution had yet occurred and no immediate withdrawal was needed. The combined total, while close to the limit, had not yet exceeded it. This meant the family avoided the more urgent step of arranging an emergency withdrawal of excess contributions from one of the plans, which would have required additional paperwork with the plan administrator and could have disrupted the grant already earned on those funds.
5. Set a coordinated annual contribution plan across both accounts. Working from the agreement Hieu and Quang reached, we set out a simple annual schedule allocating the remaining grant-eligible room between the two plans in a way both men were comfortable with, so future contributions from either side would stay within both the lifetime limit and the annual grant threshold without either plan administrator needing to know about the other's activity in real time.
6. Documented the arrangement in writing for both families' records. We put the agreed contribution split and the underlying calculations in a short written summary for both Hieu and Quang to keep, so the arrangement would survive beyond the conversation itself and could be referred back to as the child got older and either plan's contribution pattern needed to change, with Lindita keeping the copy that would eventually sit alongside the family's other financial records.

The outcome

The family avoided the overcontribution penalty entirely, since the coordination happened before either plan's next contribution would have pushed the combined total past the limit. No penalty tax was ever assessed, and no emergency withdrawal was needed from either plan, which meant the government grant already earned on both accounts stayed exactly where it was, continuing to grow until Hieu's son eventually needed to draw on it.

Just as importantly for Hieu, the underlying fear that started this whole conversation was resolved. With both plans coordinated and within limits, there was no risk of a frozen or penalized withdrawal disrupting his son's tuition payments when the time came. The two plans would remain separate accounts, administered independently, but the family now had a shared, documented understanding of how much room existed and how it would be used.

The conversation between Hieu and Quang, uncomfortable as it might have been to start, ended up strengthening rather than straining the arrangement. Quang kept contributing, at a slightly adjusted pace that left room for Hieu's own plan to keep growing too, and both men had, for the first time, an actual shared picture of what they were building together for the grandson both plans were meant to support.

Lindita's instinct to double-check the numbers, rather than simply trust that two well-meaning family members contributing to the same cause could not possibly cause a problem, turned out to be the single most useful moment in the whole file. Nothing about either plan looked wrong on its face, which is exactly the kind of overlap that tends to go unnoticed until a penalty notice forces the issue years later, at a point when far less could be done about it.

What you can learn from this