In a "highly unusual matrimonial matter," the British Columbia Supreme Court awarded $4,000 per month in interim spousal support payable by a 77-year-old "sugar daddy" to a 23-year-old "sugar baby" in Bekar v. Mordo, 2025 BCSC 1843. The parties' short marriage left the Claimant unable to meet basic transitional needs, while the Respondent’s significant spending funded by the periodic payment of capital warranted a broad interpretation of his means under the Divorce Act. The Court deviated from the usual rules under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG), awarding a modest sum of transitional support focused on meeting the actual expenses of the Claimant rather than to restore her to the relationship standard of living. 

Factual Background 

Ms. Bekar and Mr. Mordo met in late 2020 through a platform which, according to Mr. Mordo, connects "sugar babies" with "sugar daddies/mommies." The parties lived a luxurious lifestyle travelling and dining at expensive restaurants funded by Mr. Mordo. The parties began living together in March 2021 and married in April 2023. After a brief, tumultuous relationship, the parties separated in November 2024.

Mr. Mordo is retired and lives off income generated from the sale of capital assets. His reported income is modest, with his tax returns indicating he generates income of approximately $25,000 per year. Ms. Bekar is a student yet to enter the job market. She was studying anthropology at the University of British Columbia when the parties met, but Mr. Mordo encouraged her to transfer to online fashion school in Istanbul during the relationship. 

Applications

The parties brought competing applications: 

Ms. Bekar sought interim spousal support of $12,025 per month, retroactive to the date of separation, with a total retroactive amount of $100,400. This was based on an imputed income of $2,450,000 to Mr. Mordo based on his spending and lifestyle. She also sought disclosure of financial documents and reimbursement for tuition and orthodontic expenses. 

Mr. Mordo sought to set aside a protection order and requested the return of the parties’ dog, Frankie. 

Analysis

Ms. Bekar had a needs-based entitlement to spousal support based on the basic needs/undue hardship exception to the SSAG as outlined in Singh v Singh, 2013 ONSC 6476 (Singh). The basic needs/undue hardship exception recognizes short relationships may result in the usual rules under the SSAGs providing inadequate support for the recipient to meet their basic transitional needs.

Mr. Mordo's high spending demonstrated his ability to pay, despite his reportedly modest income. Mr. Mordo fell within the exception to the general rule that periodic capital payments should not be included in guideline income for support purposes, as it was unfair, because of temporary economic necessity, to require Ms. Bekar to make a sudden adjustment to a significantly lower standard of living by reason of separation from Mr. Bekar who has customarily treated such capital receipts as income.

As both Ms. Bekar’s needs and Mr. Mordo’s ability to pay fell within exceptional categories, the quantum of support was determined based on Ms. Bekar’s reasonable monthly expenses on a transitional basis, rather than the usual rules set out in the SSAG. Ms. Bekar’s stated monthly expenses of $12,535 were not reasonable, and through considering a reduced budget alongside Ms. Bekar’s obligation to support herself through part-time work, the Court ordered Mr. Mordo pay ongoing spousal support of $4,000 per month retroactive to the date of separation. 

The Court dismissed the remainder of Ms. Bekar's application for orthodontic and tuition expenses and adjourned the document production application generally. Mr. Mordo's application was entirely dismissed. Ms. Bekar's misconduct removing personal items contrary to the direction of the Associate Judge after the protection order was insufficient grounds to set it aside. Frankie was purchased to provide Ms. Bekar emotional support, and Mr. Mordo failed to address Ms. Bekar’s concerns about his care for Frankie.

Conclusion 

This decision represents a shift in how courts approach interim spousal support in short-term relationships involving high-net-worth individuals. Where one party has funded a luxurious lifestyle during a brief marriage, and the other is left unable to meet basic needs post-separation, the court may depart from the SSAG formulas. This is particularly so where one party is retired and earns a modest reported income despite an otherwise opulent lifestyle. The focus becomes supporting a reasonable transition period based on actual needs of the recipient, rather than to restore the recipient to the lifestyle enjoyed during the relationship.