Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-21-0066-00 Date: 2025-09-08

Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Suzanne Bourdages, Applicant

v.

Robert Elgin Macey, Respondent

Heard: September 5, 2025

Before: Fitzpatrick J.

Counsel:

• M. Waddington, for the Applicant (responding party)
• R. Macey, for the Respondent (self-represented moving party)

Endorsement on Motion

Relief Sought

[1] The Respondent Robert Macey brings a motion seeking the following relief:

1. An Order to provide that, effective March 31, 2025, the Respondent's obligation to pay spousal support to the Applicant pursuant to the Interim Separation Agreement is hereby terminated. The Applicant shall reimburse the Respondent for all spousal support paid for months following March 31, 2025, within 7 days.

2. An Order to immediately revoke the Applicant as the "irrevocable beneficiary" on the Hydro One Pension Plan death benefits policy provided by the Respondent's employer (Hydro One).

3. An Order to immediately revoke the Applicant as the "Irrevocable beneficiary" on the Respondent's Hydro One Life Insurance benefit policy provided by the Respondent's employer (Hydro One).

4. An Order under the rules 13(3.3) and (5.0.2) of the Family Law Rules that the Applicant provide: i) an updated Certificate of Financial Disclosure and ii) all documents as Identified In Appendix "D". If the data is not available, then provide a detailed explanation as to why it is not possible.

5. An Order for the Applicant to return the Respondent's property as identified below:

   • i) 20'x8'x8' Transportation/cargo storage bin known as a Sea-can (as-new condition)
   • ii) Vintage lateral 4-drawer filing cabinet, original contents, and key (undamaged condition)
   • iii) Zoeker 32MP Trail Cam and associated SD card

6. An Order to have Ms. Bourdages sign the Spousal consent form associated with the proposed windmill Installation contract on Mr. Macey's bush lot described as the South 1/2 of Lot 2, Concession VII, Ware Twp. Attached as Appendix "K".

7. An Order for the Applicant to pay $1,000 to me for missed signing bonus.

8. An Order to Court Services to allow the Respondent to acquire a transcript and recording of the September 24th Settlement Conference to allow the Respondent to glean details that were missed during the conference and are vital to his case and ultimate resolution.

9. An Order for the Applicant to Immediately remove all photographs of the Respondent on all social media platforms; in particular, Facebook.

10. An order for immediate divorce.

11. Costs.

Preliminary Rulings on Relief Not Addressed

[2] At the outset of the hearing, I explained to the parties there were several heads of relief contained in the notice of motion, dated June 11, 2025, before the Court that I would not be dealing with on this attendance. I repeat my reasons for making those rulings now with reference to the numbers from the notice of motion.

No. 4 Order for Further Disclosure

[3] Notwithstanding the requests on this motion, the parties still have a significant dispute about equalization. This file was started in 2021. The file has languished. It needs to move forward and the parties know it. More on that at the end of this endorsement. In any event, both parties are aware of their ongoing obligations to disclose financial information. Since they separated over 4 years ago, one would expect the issues of valuations of assets should be easy to narrow down by now.

[4] In any event, I ordered that both parties provide an updated certificate of financial disclosure and a current financial statement on or before October 24, 2025.

No. 5 Return of Property

[5] Ms. Bourdages sold the Sea Can. She has included the value in her net family property. The rest of the items can be dealt with in the course of dealing with equalization.

No. 6 Windmill Consent

[6] Ms. Bourdages has agreed to sign whatever documents are necessary to allow this project to proceed on the land at issue. If the document is not signed on or before October 24, 2025, Mr. Macey may raise it again at trial.

No. 7 $1,000 Bonus

[7] The Court has no jurisdiction to make such an order on a temporary motion based on the evidence filed.

No. 8 Transcript Request

[8] The transcript was created on a settlement conference almost a year ago. The transcript was prepared solely for the using of the presiding justice. I advised Mr. Macey I would not be making such an order.

No. 9 Social Media Posts

[9] Both parties agreed not to make disparaging remarks about each other on social media. Beyond that, I was not prepared to enter into an inquiry about Facebook posts on this motion given the time constraints the Court is now facing.

[10] I will now deal with the other issues presented on this motion.

Background

[11] The parties started cohabiting in January 2017. They were married July 14, 2017. They separated January 7, 2021. There are no children of the marriage.

[12] This application was commenced in 2021. Unfortunately, CSD has not created a pleadings bundle for this file. Neither party uploaded the pleadings for the purposes of this motion.

[13] The parties entered into an interim separation agreement on March 1, 2022. Among other things, it required Mr. Macey to pay Ms. Bourdages $362.00 per month for spousal support until further court order or agreement of the parties. The agreement was without prejudice for either party to claim a greater or lesser amount at trial. Ms. Bourdages agreed not to have the Family Responsibility Office enforce the spousal support obligation so long as Mr. Macey kept his payments current.

[14] Mr. Macey has made all payments in respect of this agreement up to and including September 1, 2025.

[15] On March 2, 2022, the parties entered into a consent order (the "Fregeau Order") which provided:

1. Extended Health Care Insurance - Until further Order of the Court the Respondent shall forthwith add and maintain the Applicant as a beneficiary of his health benefits insurance coverage through his employer Hydro One, and forthwith provide the Applicant with proof of the same and the particulars required by the Applicant to utilize the said benefits, pursuant to subsection 34(1)(j) of the Family Law Act.

2. Life Insurance Designation - Until further Order of the Court the Respondent shall forthwith designate and maintain the Applicant as the sole irrevocable beneficiary of the Respondent's life insurance policy through his employment with Hydro One, namely the Canada Life Plan Number 320885 policy, as security for spousal support, and as security for equalization of net family property, and shall forthwith provide proof of the same to the Applicant, pursuant to subsection 34(1)(i) of the said Act, and pursuant to subsection 9(b) of the Family Law Act.

3. Pension Plan Designation - Until further Order of the Court the Respondent shall forthwith designate and maintain the Applicant as the irrevocable beneficiary of the Respondent's pension plan death benefit, and / or pension plan survivor pension with Hydro One as security for spousal support, and as security for equalization of net family property, and shall forthwith provide proof of the same to the Applicant, pursuant to subsection 34(1)(i) of the said Act, and pursuant to subsection 9(b) of the said Family Law Act.

[16] The parties had a settlement conference on September 24, 2024 before Pierce J.. Pierce J. made several orders for production. Pierce J. did not give any further directions as to the next steps in this matter other than suggesting the settlement conference could continue before her or another judge once the disclosure ordered was produced. It was not clear to me if the parties have actually complied with the directions given by Pierce J.

Decision on Contested Issues

No. 1 Termination of Spousal Support

[17] In my view, the most significant relief requested on this motion is termination of spousal support. I agree with the submissions of Ms. Bourdages that motions to change temporary orders or agreements pending trial are generally discouraged. Also, it is incumbent on any party moving to vary a temporary order to demonstrate a material change in circumstances. This is designed to encourage parties to move matters to trial and not to engage in "death by motions" litigation tactics.

[18] In this case, the parties have, for whatever reason, failed to move this matter along in an expeditious fashion.

[19] Ms. Bourdages submits she continues to be in need of spousal support. She retired from active employment early in the marriage in 2017. Since separation she has attempted to become self sufficient by cleaning houses and renting out part of a property she owns as an Airbnb. I did not have the benefit of current income information for Ms. Bourdages on this motion.

[20] Mr. Macey is currently on LTD from his employment with Hydro One. The financial statement filed on this motion shows his 2024 income as either $121,642.32 or $124,235.00. His statement shows a monthly deficit of approximately $2,700.00. He claims he is financing this deficit by using a line of credit.

[21] Mr. Macey relies on a Divorce Mate calculation using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines which indicates a duration for ongoing spousal support where there are no children for a marriage from May 1, 2017, to January 8, 2021, as being 1.75 to 3.5 years. As of September 1, 2025, Mr. Macey has now paid spousal support for 4.17 years.

[22] Counsel for Ms. Bourdages properly concedes that at trial her client's claim for spousal support may be time limited. She makes an alternative argument if the temporary agreement is terminated, that Mr. Macey be required to make ongoing payments by way of an advance on an equalization payment.

[23] In this matter I am mindful of the prime directive of the Family Law Rules set out in Rule 2(2):

(2) The primary objective of these rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly.

[24] Rule 2(3)(c) and (d) are engaged in this matter which direct the Court to deal with cases justly by:

c) dealing with the case in ways that are appropriate to its importance and complexity; and

d) giving appropriate court resources to the case taking account of the need to give resources to other cases

[25] This case has had judicial oversight by a case conference conducted in 2021 by Warkentin J., a consent motion before Fregeau J. and a settlement conference before Pierce J.. Four years after separation in a marriage of short duration with no children, the matter still is not ready for trial.

[26] In my view, the material change in this matter is the length of time that Mr. Macey has paid support relative to the length of the marriage. At trial it will be very unlikely he will be required to pay spousal support for a duration beyond that for which he has already paid. The amount of $362 per month is relatively modest. Ms. Bourdages is in receipt of pension benefit income. Her career path was unaltered by the marriage and for the purposes of this motion, I accept Mr. Macey's evidence that it was her decision, not his, for her to retire.

[27] In order to preserve the without prejudice nature of the interim agreement, I order that the ongoing obligation for Mr. Macey to pay spousal support be suspended as of October 1, 2025 until final agreement or an order made following trial. I was considering reducing the amount of ongoing support to $1 per month commencing October 1, 2025 and ongoing to trial but that would require preparing a Support Deduction Order and involve the Family Responsibility Office and I think that would unnecessarily complicate matters for these parties.

[28] The issue of spousal support and duration will be a live issue at trial. However, the parties will not be able to ignore the fact that Mr. Macey faithfully paid spousal support for some 4 years, longer than the parties were actually married but approximating how long they cohabited.

No. 3 The Hydro One Insurance Designation

[29] Paragraph 2 of the Fregeau Order requires Mr. Macey to maintain Ms. Bourdages as an irrevocable beneficiary of his life insurance benefits with Hydro. In my view, this requirement is now unnecessary given the suspension of Mr. Macey's ongoing obligation to pay spousal support. I rely on my finding of a material change in the potential length of duration of a spousal support that would be available at trial as the basis to make this change to the order.

[30] I appreciate Mr. Macey has effectively replaced this Hydro One insurance benefit for his children from a previous relationship by privately acquiring a term policy with a $100,000.00 benefit. This has caused him unnecessary monthly costs. I do not see maintaining the Hydro One insurance coverage as directed by paragraph 2 of the Fregeau Order as necessary to protect Ms. Bourdages equalization entitlement. I say this as I do not intend to relieve Mr. Macey of his obligation to maintain Ms. Bourdages as irrevocable beneficiary of his Hydro One Pension benefit. I expect the pension is Mr. Macey's largest asset, and agreeing to ultimately divide the pension benefits at source may be a route that the parties could use to ultimately resolve this matter. The irrevocable designation preserves Ms. Bourdages' claim and I do not see it as inequitable that it continue until settlement or an order following a trial.

No. 2 Irrevocable Pension Beneficiary Designation

[31] I am not prepared to grant the relief requested for reasons just stated.

No. 10 Severing Divorce Claim

[32] Without having the benefit of seeing the pleadings in this matter, I can only assume it was Ms. Bourdages who brought the claim for divorce. In any event, Mr. Macey indicates he wishes to remarry in May of 2026. Severing the divorce relief now may jeopardize the parties' abilities to use Mr. Macey's Hydro One benefits, and particularly his pension, as a tool to assist in the resolution of the matter. That said, Mr. Macey's plans to remarry are not unreasonable and if this matter cannot be completely resolved by early 2026, I am granting leave for Mr. Macey to renew this particular aspect of relief claimed in this motion at that time. If the issue of severing the divorce is not resolved by December 31, 2025, Mr. Macey has leave to bring a fresh motion seeking only the relief of severing the divorce in any regular Thunder Bay motions court commencing January 15, 2026 on notice to Ms. Bourdages. His motion material will contain these reasons as well as particulars of the date by which the divorce order has to be finalized so he can legally remarry.

Costs

[33] In my view success on this motion has been divided. No costs will be awarded on this motion.

Conclusion and Next Steps

[34] For reasons stated above it is ordered:

1. Robert Macey's obligation to pay periodic spousal support to Suzanne Bourdages in the amount of $362.00 per month pursuant to an interim separation agreement dated March 1, 2022 is hereby suspended effective October 1, 2025 until further agreement or order of the Court following trial;

2. The terms of paragraph 2 of the order of Fregeau J. dated March 2, 2022 are struck from said order. Robert Macey is relieved from compliance with the terms of paragraph 2 of the order of Fregeau J. dated March 2, 2022 effective September 5, 2025;

3. Both parties shall exchange updated certificates of Financial Disclosure and a current financial statement on or before October 24, 2025;

4. On or before December 31, 2025, the parties shall arrange a trial management conference at Thunder Bay. At that conference the parties may also explore settlement or the possibility of utilizing Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution pursuant to Rule 43 of the Family Law Rules;

5. Robert Macey is granted leave to bring a fresh motion seeking to sever the divorce relief claimed in this matter. Such motion shall not be served or filed until on or after December 31, 2025 and shall not be returnable before January 14, 2026 at a regular weekly motions court at Thunder Bay.

6. There is no order as to costs.

The Hon. Mr. Justice F.B. Fitzpatrick

Released: September 8, 2025