Family or Individual RESP: Compare Flexibility
The family plan requires relationships among beneficiaries; track contributions and grants separately for each child.
In this article
Between the family RESP and the individual one, the difference comes down to a condition and a flexibility. The condition: the family plan requires a blood or adoptive relationship between the subscriber and every beneficiary. The flexibility: under one administration, with a single set of fees and common investments, contributions and their growth can serve one child if another does not study. This internal reallocation avoids formal transfers. One limit remains in both formulas: grants stay capped per child, and those of a child who does not use the plan return to the governments. Per-child tracking applies everywhere, because grants and ceilings count individually. The real difference is administrative: one account rather than several. Individual plans keep their uses, starting with opening by an unrelated third party. This article compares the two structures case by case, with the scenarios of changed school paths where the family plan's flexibility stands out.
Verify the required family relationship
A family plan is not open to just any group of children. The beneficiaries must be related to the subscriber by blood or adoption. That includes children, grandchildren, brothers and sisters, but excludes nephews, nieces and a spouse's children without an adoption tie. Check this condition before opening, because an improperly set-up family plan has to be unwound. Blended families are the most affected by this rule. The solution often runs through several individual plans, which cost slightly more in fees but settle the question for good.
Track contributions and grants per child
Even in a family plan, where the funds are pooled, grants stay attributed individually. Each beneficiary has their own counter of grants received and lifetime caps. The family plan lets you share investment earnings among the children, but not the grants, which follow the beneficiary. Per-child tracking is therefore needed even with a single plan, and it is done from the promoter's statements. Contributing without specifying the split among beneficiaries is the most frequent cause of lost grants.
Measure the flexibility when a child does not study
This is the family plan's main argument. If one child does not pursue postsecondary studies, the accumulated earnings and part of the grants can benefit the other beneficiaries of the same plan, subject to individual caps. With individual plans, the same flexibility exists, but it requires a transfer between plans. That transfer is possible between siblings under certain conditions, with formalities and sometimes fees. The difference is therefore administrative rather than fundamental. But it is felt at the moment when the family has other worries than paperwork.
Compare fees at equal structure
The choice between the two formulas also compares on costs. A single family plan avoids multiplying annual administration fees, which is a real advantage when those fees are fixed per account. On the other hand, some promoters, notably the group plans offered by specialized firms, impose high enrolment fees and rigid contribution rules. Leaving early is costly there. To compare honestly, put both structures at the same type of promoter, with the same underlying investments. That leaves only the question to settle: family or individual. The rest follows.
Quebec scenario
Two children, two already very different temperaments, and a question when opening the RESPs: one family plan or two individual plans? The advisor of a couple in Chicoutimi refuses to answer with a slogan and explains the real differences. The family plan requires all beneficiaries to be related to the subscriber by blood or adoption. That condition is met here. Everyone ends up under one administration, with a single set of fees and common investments. Above all, it offers flexibility: contributions and their growth can serve one child if the other does not study. The grant rules stay the same. They are capped per child and return to the government if no eligible beneficiary uses them. Individual plans draw clean borders: one account per child, no ambiguity about sharing. Anyone can open one, an uncle for example. But transfers between plans come with conditions, and the paperwork doubles. Per-child tracking is mandatory in both formulas, since grants and ceilings count individually. It is simpler with a family plan, as long as the statement details it. The comparison of fees and investments, identical at their provider, settles nothing. They choose the family plan for the flexibility and note the mechanics in the file. If the eldest goes to CEGEP and the youngest takes a different path, the growth can follow the studies that actually happen, rather than the plan imagined at the start.
Checklist
- Verify the family plan's required relationship
- Compare fees and investments at equal structure
- Understand the internal reallocation of contributions
- Remember the per-child grant ceiling
- Expect unused grants to be returned
- Keep per-child tracking in both formulas
- Weigh the simplicity of a single account
- Consider the individual plan for an unrelated third party
- Document the choice and its reasons
The questions we get
A question about your situation?
A Quebec broker answers, with no commitment.
Read next
// Investments
RESP: Coordinate the Federal Grant and Quebec Incentive
Verify the contribution eligible for each program and confirm the promoter submits both applications.
// Investments
Convert an RRSP to a RRIF: Prepare Minimum Withdrawals
Note the conversion deadline and the minimum withdrawal factor that will apply from the following year.
// Investments
TFSA or RRSP: Choose by Goal and Tax Rate
Choose between TFSA and RRSP based on the goal, the withdrawal horizon and your current and future tax rates.