Written by Randolph Scott
In its September 30, 2025 edition, the National Post reported a recent B.C. Supreme Court decision under the attention grabbing headline “B.C. ‘sugar baby’ wins interim spousal support from ex, 77”
While the parties to this litigation did indeed begin their relationship as “Sugar Daddy -Sugar Baby” through the online “Seeking Arrangements” website, the Post did explain that Ms Jane Bekar and Mr. Alexander Mordo did eventually reside together as a common law couple, then marrying two year later.
The relationship between Ms Bekar and Mr. Mordo, perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly, was tumultuous with a bitter breakup resulting in legal action amid accusations against the other of entering the relationship for “predatory purposes”.
So, headlines not withstanding, the matter was a rather commonplace one: a briefly married couple seeks divorce, the wife then seeking spousal support, the husband insisting the brevity of the union precluded such support and that further, he had far less in earnings and assets than had been alleged. Mordo also argued his former sugar baby had an ability to earn her own income thus rectifying any economic disadvantage resulting from the breakdown of the marriage.
However, as the deciding judge noted in his August, 2025 decision, while this particular case contained a number of unusual features, the most unusual was the “enormous age gap” between the parties. Bekar was a 23 year old university student who had never been in the workforce, Mordo was a 77 year old businessman with several Vancouver properties owned by his holding company.
In her claim for interim support pending trial action, Bekar sought:
- Mr. Mordo’s annual income be imputed at $2.45 million;
- A resulting spousal support obligation of $12,025 per month;
- $100,400 in retroactive support back 8 months to the parties’ separation;
- A lump sum payment of $17,013.16 for tuition at a foreign fashion school, and
- A lump sum payment of $3000 for orthodontic treatment.
Mr. Mordo disputed these numbers – he reported only a “modest income” and that his opulent lifestyle resulted from him selling capital assets from time to time. He stated Ms Bekar’s financial needs could be met by her working, seeking support from her wealthy family or by selling off the expensive gifts he gave her during their relationship.
In his decision, Justice Millman of the BC Supreme Court noted both the age gap and the unusual origins of the relationship. He reviewed the origins of this relationship, the brief and tumultuous life that ensued and the claims and positions of each of the parties. He then looked to the Divorce Act to first determine if Ms Bekar’s sought after interim support was warranted and, if so, how much should be ordered on an interim basis.
Canada’s Divorce Act permits courts to order interim support in order to achieve the objectives noted in Section 15.2(6) of the Act:
a) Recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;
b) Apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of an child of the marriage;
c) Relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and
d) In so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.
As there were no children, Justice Millman was compelled to look at subsections a), c) and d) of s.15.2(6). The purpose of this section is to recognize that a party may suffer a sizable financial setback and as a result, to the best extent possible, to ameliorate the difficulties arising from the dissolution of the marriage and to set a path toward self sufficiency for each of the parties.
With these objectives in mind, Justice Millman noted Ms Bekar sought interim support in an amount that would maintain the lifestyle “…the parties enjoyed during the relationship”. Bekar stated that Mr. Mordo encouraged her to spend $10,000 per month on her rental accommodation, at his expense. In addition, he regularly gave her gifts of jewelry, watches and handbags as well as frequent dining at expensive restaurants.
Moreover, Ms Bekar stated Mr. Mordo encouraged her to abandon her university studies and to enrol at an international fashion school based in Istanbul, Turkey. Since the breakup, Mr. Mordo refused to pay any further tuition to the school.
Ms Bekar’s counsel argued the ongoing expenses took the case outside the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) where previous caselaw found:
“… there is a specific problem for shorter marriages where the recipient has little or no income. In these shorter marriage cases, the formula may generate too little support for the low income recipient to meet her or his basic needs for a transitional period.” (Singh v. Singh 2013)
SSAG is advisory only and, unlike the certainty of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, provide only a formula to assist a court in making a determination of appropriate spousal support. Indeed, the Divorce Act has provisions (like s.15.2(6) above) that compel a court to examine a number of factors in determining both the amount and the duration of spousal support.
Mr. Mordo’s lawyer argued that Ms Bekar could sell off the gifts previously given to her, obtain money from her wealthy family or earn an income (counsel noted Ms Bekar had previously earned income as a paid escort) that could be imputed at $30,000 a year.
However, Justice Millman found that Ms Bekar’s needs cannot be met through the steps urged by counsel. Mr. Mordo cannot be relieved of his financial obligation because of Bekar’s wealthy relatives, and she cannot raise enough funds through the sale of gifts remaining in her possession. Further, the academic program Bekar was enrolled was at Mordo’s urging with online class hours resulting from the time difference with Turkey making it difficult “though not impossible, for her to work”.
Justice Millman examined Mr. Mordo’s earnings and found them substantially higher than what was reported in his evidence (he was claiming combined annual income of $64,000 resulting in SSAG payments of $174 per month).
The court found Mordo was selling off capital assets that were held by his holding company with the resulting funds paid to him since 2021 in the amount of $1.54 million, all of which was tax free. In addition, Mr. Mordo drew a tax free dividend of $115,796 over the same period.
Mordo’s counsel responded that these amounts are not income, rather they are the sale of capital assets and thusly should be precluded in such an assessment.
The Court rejected this argument noting caselaw cited by counsel holds that it is only “generally inappropriate” to include funds received on capital asset sales. Indeed, caselaw provided by Mordo’s counsel noted an exception where a potential recipient of support would suffer a “significantly lower standard of living” by reason of separation and thusly should receive consideration based on capital asset sales as well as the payor’s income.
However, the Court was not prepared to provide Ms Bekar the $12,000 per month support requested. He noted her “opulent lifestyle” was, over the few years of the relationship, fairly new to her and a reduction would “not be as jarring …had she been used to that opulent lifestyle over many years.”
The Court further noted that the application was for interim support and, on this basis, was prepared to order such support “…to assist Ms Bekar in meeting her reasonable needs in this transition period, rather than try to recreate and maintain the opulent lifestyle she enjoyed during the relationship.”
Justice Millman found Ms Bekar’s interim needs could be met on a much more modest budget and ordered interim support of $4000 per month, commencing October 1, 2025. He also ordered arrears on this amount going back the 11 months since Ms Bekar filed her claim. This amount ($44,000) was reduced to $39,748 based on expenses previously paid by Mr. Mordo.
Other applications considered by the Court at this time included a continuation of a protection order against Mr. Mordo as well as his request that the dog, Frankie, be returned to him. Justice Millman denied the request for Frankie noting this rescue animal was obtained to assist Ms Bekar following a suicide attempt in 2021. Since that time, it was noted Frankie and Bekar had been largely inseparable. Justice Millman refused to remove the protection order against Mr. Mordo given the allegations and ongoing concerns expressed by Ms Bekar.
In spite of the National Post’s attention grabbing headline regarding sugar daddies, the matter of Bekar v. Mordo does illustrate a court’s consideration in awarding support following a relationship breakdown. The Divorce Act’s Section 15.2(6) provides the framework that a court must consider in order to reasonably ameliorate some of the financial difficulty arising from a breakdown of the marriage, particularly where one party enjoys a significantly higher income and lifestyle. This consideration will include a review the length of the relationship, the economic hardships suffered by one party or the other as a result of the breakdown, the needs and means of each party and, lastly, to assist in promoting the economic self sufficiency of the parties going forward. As some have described it, it is to “unspool” two lives that become increasingly intertwined over the duration of a relationship, from sugar daddy/sugar baby, to common law cohabitation, to the exchange of vows in a marriage.
For Bekar and Murdo the further test will come at trial (set for 2026). However, Justice Millman’s decision reveals the court’s reasoning in determining whether support is warranted and, where so determined, how much should be awarded. The trial court will determine the duration of support as well as the amount with a mind toward setting the “economic self sufficiency” of the parties.