bruce boudreau v. randi jakobsen 2021 ONCA 511

Statement of Record – Public Statement and Clarification of Record

Bruce Boudreau | Boudreau v. Jakobsen (2021 ONCA 511)

Statement Regarding the Ontario Court of Appeal Decision

Boudreau v. Jakobsen 2021 ONCVA 511.

I am issuing this statement to provide a clear and accurate account of the legal matter between myself and the appellant, following the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Boudreau v. Jakbosen 2021 ONCA 511.

While I was successful in the appeal as well as the earlier family law trial, it is clear that aspects of the public record and subsequent commentary have created a misleading and inaccurate impression of both the facts and my character.

The Court of Appeal ultimately ruled in my favour. That outcome reflects the Court’s careful review of the legal issues and the evidentiary record. However, as is often true in appellate decisions, the written reasons summarize complex personal and legal circumstances in a highly condensed form. Important context, nuance, and contested facts are not fully captured and conveyed. Essentially, the Appellant controls the narrative.

Throughout these proceedings, the Appellant made several assertions that are disingenuous, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete. Although these claims were part of the appellant’s adversarial and antagonistic process and strategy, their repetition in public forums presents them as established and proven facts, which they are not.

I did not have the opportunity, within the written decision, to fully address or correct every characterization that may now be interpreted as definitive. I hired Jenna Beaton & Jessica Grys, formerly of McCarthy Hanson & Company. They advised that we should defend the appeal but not to file a cross-appeal. I trusted and accepted their guidance and advice. I now realize that Jenna Beaton and Jessica Gris were negligent in the advice provided and did not inform me of the possible reputational harm. At the time, I was beginning therapy in a trauma treatment program and lacked the capacity to fully engage in the appeal process. I was only beginning to comprehend the profound harm caused to me by living in an abusive marriage. My focus was on moving forward and trying to rebuild my life. In hindsight, I recognize that not filing a cross-appeal was a mistake, as it could have addressed many damaging allegations put forward by the Appellant. And it may also have challenged Justice Sharon Stone’s conduct toward me, including what I contend was the use of coercive control and the continuation of financial abuse through the spousal support award and review order, as well as prejudicial and discriminatory conclusions reached against me.

As a result, I believe it is important to clarify that:

  • The appeal was decided in my favour.
  • The court rejected Randi Jakobsen’s assertion that we were “roommates” and viewed her argument as an attempt to avoid paying the statutory spousal support obligations.
  • Allegations or representations made during the proceedings were not proven in court and were not accepted as fact.
  • The published reasons should not be read as a complete or balanced account of the underlying relationship or events.

Facts: 1/ I was a victim and lived in an emotionally and physically abusive domestic relationship with Randi Jakobsen that had a lasting impact on my mental health, including clinically significant depression and trauma-related symptoms resulting in cptsd. During the marriage, I believed we were in a unhealthy co-dependant relationship, not until well after I left did I fully understand and accept the level of emotional and physical abuse I was subjected to. This is the reason and extent of my mental health issues. Although I don’t agree with all of Justice Sharon Shores findings and assertions, this unnecessary appeal was an abuse of the legal system and further it was used by the appellant as a tool to create additional harm to me. This appeal was part of a smear campaign of public character assassination. This smear campaign has clearly been successful. The Court of Appeal has been used to create damage and further, the Justice who decided it should move forward is equally responsible.

2/ My employment record will be addressed and reviewed in future posts. I was employed throughout our relationship, at various times underemployed and gainfully as it the nature of my field of work, except in the last five years before I left the relationship when I was underemployed and experiencing significant depression and ptsd as a result of spousal abuse. The one quote, used irresponsibly by Justice Shore to wholly characterize me as not worthy, was utilized by the appellant in her appeal without context or recognition of the circumstances and it is not representative of me or my character but it has irreparably damaged me. At the beginning of the ten day trial I requested to Justice Shore that my computer be returned to me as it contained my work and work history, sales sheets and business ledgers. Randi Jakobsen was aware of this because she was “In charge” of the business finances as she controlled all finances within our house-hold. My computer was returned erased of all data. This information would have represented and proved my work history. Often, as is the case in my field of work, cash deals were made. As an example, a Sr. executive in Randi Jakobsen’s place of employment (Place of employment at that time) purchased goods in excess of one hundred and sixty thousand dollars, all cash sale. Randi Jakobsen should have claimed this as income on our taxes and she did not. I had no knowledge of this as I was not privy to the tax documents and I only discovered this at trial with taxes submitted as evidence. But the purchased goods exist and are well documented in corporate photographs. I was introduced to many clients through Randi Jakobsen, and various departments within the company she was employed by, where similar transactions were executed. Wealthy clients often request cash transactions for various reasons. This of course represents financial abuse on multiple levels and represents the level of control, manipulation and restrictions I was subjected to within our common law marriage. Randi Jakobsen do not claim my income on our taxes. ( I will write more on this and our household financial arrangements and financial abuse in future.) There was a power imbalance in my common-law relationship that kept me systematically destabilized, this is coercive control. I acquiesced to keep the peace and to try to protect myself. It is important to note that I was self represented at the ten-day family court trial and my main focus was to prove that Randi Jakobsen and I were in fact common law spouses for 22.5 years. During pretrial Randi Jakobsen and her lawyers purposefully and willfully withheld documents, wills, power of attorney(s), insurance policies, pension, and our tax documents which would have proven we were spouses early in the process. This left me living in poverty. This was deliberate, intentional and strategic, it was calculated. It insured that I would not be able to procure legal representation. (I will write more on pretrial in future, The Lawyers and Justices involved.) At that time I was dealing with unbelievable stress and just beginning to understand the level of abuse I had endured. At the beginning of the Trial, Justice Shore asked me if I would like to postpone. I asked if she would court order Randi Jakobsen to provide funds to hire a lawyer and Justice Shore refused this request. I refused the offer to postpone and insisted we proceed forward. It was at this time that Justice Shore and Randi Jakobsen decided without my input that the two separate legal questions, which could have been heard as two separate trials, would be heard as one trail. This was apparently requested by Jakobsen without my knowledge. The problem here is that if two separate trails, I could have hired lawyers for the second half and this option was denied to me. During the ten day family court trial I was able to produce evidence that forced the withheld documents into evidence. This evidence along with letters from professionals, such as our family doctor, which stated that we both represented that we were spouses proved we were common law spouses. That was where all of my emotional energy was placed and I did not have the emotional capacity to defend myself further in the second half of the trial. Many lies and half truths were stated about my work history, my character, my participation in our life together and our shared household duties, and I stopped defending myself because I didn’t have the mental health capacity to do more. This was all impacted by Justice Shores clear bias toward Randi Jakobsen. I was physically and emotionally depleted and defeated by the entirety of the legal process and the abuse i was subjected to. Justice Shore was made aware of this and I questioned her bias. For all of these reasons I did not discuss the pattern of cash sales as I did not have the sales sheet documents and the computer had been scrubbed. In Justice Shores final decision she did not acknowledge that Randi Jakobsen willfully and purposefully withheld documents that kept me living in poverty. Justice Shore did not acknowledge that Randi Jakobsen was disingenuous and lied to court. Justice Shore ignored these proven facts. With overwhelming evidence of disingenuous behaviour Justice Shore gave a proven liar, Randi Jakobsen, the benefit of a doubt and further Justice Shore imposed penalties on me in her spousal support package – Why? This is misandry, sexism and mental health stigma. This is prejudicial and discriminatory.

3/ I, Bruce Boudreau, did not assault my former spouse Randi Pearl Jakobsen. The assault allegations were made and subsequently withdrawn by the crown. At the end of our 22.5 year common law relationship, I informed my former spouse that I was leaving and further that I would be living as a bi/queer man – A fact my former spouse had known since our university days in our twenties. This was clearly not the sole reason I was ending the relationship. Rather than parting amicably, Randi Jakobsen responded with anger and an unfounded assault allegation. (In the future I will provide more details about the allegations and the day I informed Randi of my decision to leave our common-law marriage) One point must be made clear: regardless of truth, the law allows for anyone to make false, unfounded and unreasonable claims against another person without consideration of their motives. This tactic is often used by highly antagonistic and manipulative individuals. The legal system uses the term “antagonistic personality” as the polite way to describe narcissistic personality traits. Protecting image is paramount to antagonistic personalities; the moment there is a hint that others are aware of their abuse, they will take any action necessary to accuse the victim and shift the blame. Such manipulation enables further victimization by vengeful and mentally compromised partners seeking to cause further harm using the legal system. This occurs far more frequently than the legal system or media are willing to acknowledge. This is coercive control, it is deliberate and calculated and this is what happened to me. In addition, during the ten-day family court trial, Randi Jakobsen repeatedly made homophobic insinuations regarding my sexuality directed to Justice Shore. After multiple homophobic dog whistles, I addressed these remarks directly, clarifying my sexuality. Under Ontario law, using a person’s sexual orientation to disadvantage, discriminate, or harass them in family court is prohibitive and violates the Ontario Human rights code. However, Justice Shore failed to acknowledge Randi’s behaviour or this serious violation in her final decision. Justice Shore’s ruling was biased and prejudiced against me on multiple levels. This was an act of homophobia – it is prejudicial and discriminatory.

4/ Randi Jakobsen and I lived together in a common law relationship, recognized both publicly and privately by family and professionals within our life together. We shared a conjugal relationship and were regarded as a married couple. I was never her roommate, nor am I a manipulative grifter who came off the street to take her money as has been falsely claimed. These accusations are fabrications intended to cause maximum harm. My sexuality does not alter any of the facts of our relationship. I contributed within our common law relationship on multiple levels and I endured the abuse of a toxic relationship until I no longer could. Despite Randi Jakobsen’s proven falsehoods in court, and despite Justice Shore’s acknowledgment of Jakobsen’s withholding of evidence and dishonesty in the court transcript – along with the clear human rights violation – Justice Shore chose to accept Randi Jakobsen’s negative narrative and characterization of me. Justice Shore further perpetuated Jakobsen’s abuse by imposing a review clause that requires me to meet her employment standards regardless of any mental health conditions and recovery needs caused by the abuse. In addition, Justice Shore decided to award limited spousal support at the lowest end of the scale. She could have awarded indefinite support in accordance with the “Rule of 65’ which holds that if the combination of the support recipient’s age at the time of separation (49) plus the length of relationship (21) equals 65 or greater, as such I, the recipient, could be entitled to indefinite spousal support. In my case, the calculation was 70 substantially more than the threshold. Yet Justice Shore chose a different direction. Justice shore was never concerned for the seriousness of the mental health issues at play, she simply chose to believe that I was idle and therefore not worthy. Justice Shore continued the abuse Randi Jakobsen started. Justice Shore’s decision reflects misandry, sexism, mental health stigma and homophobia. It is prejudicial and discriminatory.

As in the Appeal, Legal decisions are necessarily focused on specific legal questions, not on providing a comprehensive narrative of the individuals involved. I respect the judicial process and the role of the courts, but I also recognize that public perception can be shaped by incomplete and purposefully harmful information presented in a public forum. Equally, It should be noted that the legal and court system are biased and influenced by prejudice and clearly can be discriminatory. The legal system is not blind. In the original family court trial, Justice Shore was bound by the proof that disproved the legal questions but her personal bias and prejudice influenced her decision to continue the abuse. Justice Shore’s decision was not balanced and fair as is dictated by the written law. Justice Shore was rewriting law based on her bias. And that should be corrected. This Family court case and Justice Shore’s decision is not about the so called importance of economic self sufficiency it is more complex and nuanced but for some reason Justice Shore took a harsh position which did not consider complex realities of spousal abuse and cptsd induced by spousal abuse. Justice Shore continued the coercive control and financial control that I had been subjected to in my common law marriage. This is a continuation of the spousal abuse/ violence I was subjected to within our common law marriage. This is litigation/ legal abuse.

I ask that anyone reviewing or commenting on this matter take care to distinguish between tested legal findings and unproven assertions that have been presented during the course of litigation.

In this online document I will be challenging the misinformation which the appellant purposefully and harmfully asserts. Equally, I will be challenging the commentary which has been decidedly unscholarly, irresponsible and misleading.

It should be acknowledged that in spite of this new information many people will continue to believe the narrative as it is presented in the various articles. I acknowledge that everyone has a personal agenda and very specific reasons to continue to believe that specific narrative and lies. In this instance, that reality can not be mitigated.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this clarification.

Bruce Boudreau

Sources & References

Court Record

Supporting Documents

Statement of Record, Appeals Disclosure November 2024

Correspondence from Ontario Court of Appeal, Feburary 2025