Spousal Support Outside the Guidelines: Bekar v. Mordo 2025 — A BC Case

Author: SiLaw Group Family Lawyers
Published: Aug 10, 2026

---

In September 2025, the B.C. Supreme Court released its decision in Bekar v. Mordo, 2025 BCSC 1843. Legal commentators noticed it quickly, because the parties met through a website that matches so-called "sugar" partners — typically an older, wealthy person and a much younger companion. Beneath the headline, though, the case answers a serious question that comes up in many separations: what happens when the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) produce numbers that make no sense for the relationship in front of the court?

Read the decision on the B.C. Courts website.

A short marriage with an unusual beginning

The claimant was 23. The respondent was 77. They met online in late 2020, began living together in March 2021, married on April 4, 2023, and separated for good in November 2024. There were no children. Each party accused the other of entering the relationship for predatory reasons — an issue Justice Milman left for trial.

After separation, the claimant applied for interim spousal support of $12,025 per month. She argued that the respondent's spending showed an ability to pay far beyond his reported income. The respondent answered that his income should be assessed at no more than $64,000 per year. On his math, the SSAG would produce mid-range support of just $174 to $327 per month, for at most 3.5 years.

Was spouse status the issue?

Not in this case. The parties were legally married, so the claimant's standing to seek support under the Divorce Act was never in doubt. What the decision shows is that the unusual way a relationship starts does not control how it ends. The court did not treat the dating platform, or the age gap, as a reason to refuse support. In another part of the ruling, Justice Milman noted that the website through which the parties met was not a central fact.

That matters for unmarried couples too. In B.C., partners who never marry can still qualify as spouses under the Family Law Act if they live together in a marriage-like relationship for long enough. Courts look at the substance of the relationship — a shared home, a shared life, financial interdependence — not at whether it appears conventional from the outside.

Why the guideline ranges didn't fit

The SSAG normally give courts a workable range for the amount and duration of support. Here, the judge found the case sat inside two recognized exceptions at once.

1. The basic needs exception. The claimant had not yet entered the workforce and had no steady income. In a short marriage where the recipient earns little or nothing, the SSAG formula can generate support too low to cover basic needs, even for a transition period — a known gap the guideline authors addressed with a tailored exception. The court accepted that this exception applied.

2. Means can include capital. The respondent was retired. His reported yearly income from 2020 to 2023 ranged from $22,164 to $123,533, with the highest year explained mainly by a one-time capital gain. Yet he funded a lavish lifestyle largely by selling real estate held through his company. The court found he had drawn down a shareholder loan by $1,545,324 between the end of 2022 and the end of 2024, and had also taken $115,796 in tax-free dividends. The general rule is that support is paid from income, not capital. But there are exceptions — including where it would be unfair to force the recipient into a sudden, sharp drop in living standards when the payor has routinely treated capital sales like income. The judge found this was one of those rare cases.

With both exceptions engaged, the judge concluded that the usual SSAG rules were "less helpful in this case."

What the court ordered

Rather than the $174 to $327 per month proposed by the respondent, or the $12,025 sought by the claimant, the court ordered interim spousal support of $4,000 per month starting October 1, 2025, and continuing until trial. It also ordered retroactive support back to the date the claim was filed: 11 payments totalling $44,000, minus a credit of $4,251.96 for expenses the respondent had already covered, for a net award of $39,748.

The goal was transition, not lifestyle replication. The court pared back the claimant's proposed budget of $12,535 per month, which included items tied to the former lifestyle, and set an amount aimed at reasonable needs while she finishes her studies and moves toward supporting herself. Because this was an interim order, entitlement to longer-term support remains a live question for trial.

What this signals in B.C.

A few practical points come out of the decision:

• Labels don't decide support. Courts focus on need, means, and the economic consequences of the relationship — not on how a couple met or how conventional the relationship looked.
• The SSAG are advisory. They are the starting point in most cases, but courts can depart from them where the formula produces unrealistic results at either end.
• Capital can count. A payor who lives well by selling assets may not be able to point to a low tax return and call that the end of the analysis.
• Interim is not final. Interim support bridges the gap to trial. The deeper questions in this case are still to be decided.

Short or unconventional relationships raise hard support questions, and the answers depend heavily on the facts. If you are separating and wondering what support could look like in your situation, our team can walk you through how these principles may apply. Learn more about spousal support, or Book a free consultation with SiLaw Group.

This post is legal information, not legal advice.