Search
我喜歡飛奔 那有一種渴望的迫切
我不怕嘗試 我不想悔恨取代了可能
我喜歡黑白 更喜歡中間的灰色地帶
我喜歡生活裡的細節 每一天都可以因此變的更有趣
然後 勇敢做自己 一切會因此更快樂
我的選物商店10680在今日上線
希望你們喜歡🖤
Just be yourself and pay little attention to other's comments on you as long as your attitude toward life is positive and active.
Art X Design X Contemporary X Fashion X Lifestyle
#防疫期間實體店暫不開幕
#我們一起期待解封
#10680
這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。（加拿大法院鏈接在此：https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8）
這位法王的桃色事件，我是幾年前才聽到。但，藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞，我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過，也有一些活佛跟她表白。（這不只是她，其他地方我也聽過不少）
這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。
很多時候發生這種事情，信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇，或者說她們也精神病，或者說她們撒謊。
我不排除有這種可能性，但，多過一位，甚至多位出來指證的時候，我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。
大寶法王的桃色事件，最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒，第二位是香港的女出家人，現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。
對大寶法王信徒來說，這一次的比較麻煩，因為是有孩子的。（關於有孩子的，我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時，就有聽聞）
如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA，這對法王和他的信徒來說，會很尷尬和矛盾，因為做或不做，都死。
你若問我，我覺得『人數是有力量的』，同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來，是不出奇的。
我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒，如果你們真的愛佛教，先別說批判，但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議，你是間接害了佛教。
（下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容，當中有很多細節。）
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
F. Delay / Prejudice
CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).
[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.
[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.
[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.
[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.
BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.
[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.
[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.
[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.
[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.
[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.
[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.
[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.
[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.
[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.
[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.
[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.
[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:
a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;
b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;
c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;
d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.
[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.
[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.
[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.
[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:
I will definitely find a way to meet her
And you
Remember to take care of yourself if something happens
[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.
[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.
[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.
[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.
[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.
[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:
3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person
(a) is married to another person, or
(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and
(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or
(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.
[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).
[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.
[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.
[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.
[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.
[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.
[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.
[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.
[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.
[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.
[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.
[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:
[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.
[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:
1. Shelter:
(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?
(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?
(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?
2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:
(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?
(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?
(c) What were their feelings toward each other?
(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?
(e) Did they eat their meals together?
(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?
(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?
3. Services:
What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:
(a) preparation of meals;
(b) washing and mending clothes;
(c) shopping;
(d) household maintenance; and
(e) any other domestic services?
4. Social:
(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?
(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?
5. Societal:
What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?
6. Support (economic):
(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?
(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?
(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?
7. Children:
What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?
[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).
[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:
[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.
[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.
[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.
[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:
[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.
[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:
a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.
b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.
c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.
d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.
e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.
f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.
g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.
[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.
[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.
[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.
[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).
[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.
[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.
[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.
[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.
[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.
[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.
[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.
[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:
[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.
[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.
[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.
[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:
[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.
[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:
[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …
[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.
[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.
F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.
[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.
[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.
[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.
[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.
[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.
[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.
[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.
[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.
CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.
[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.
[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.
“Master Elwood”
台灣最大公約數 – 反共去統不反中
The True Common Denominator of Taiwan
我察覺到一個新的台灣共識（最大公約數）正在成形，而且已經接近完成。雖然許多人還沒意識到這點，也還有一些人尚處在無感、或雖然有感但心理上拒絕的階段。
I sensed a New Taiwan Consensus is forming and near completion, although many are still not fully aware of it, some at the psychological stage of ignoring it and some even in total denial .
這新共識可以用三個原素的一句話來總結：反共、去統、不反中國平民。三元素環環相扣，構成了一個具有主旋律的直白命題：那些已經把台灣視為自己家鄉的人，已經把台灣當成一個與他方無涉的主體。
This New Consensus can be summarized in one expression with three parallel elements: opposing communism, de-unification and neutralness toward Chinese civilians. These three elements constitute an organic whole with a common theme that simply says, people who took Taiwan as their home deemed themselves as one distinct entity .
為了讓人們充分理解這三元素的意義，需要做一些進一步闡釋。我們這就開始。
I understand some elaboration may be needed to allow the three elements to be fully appreciated, especially the third one. Let me begin.
1. 反共。台灣其實並沒有那麼反對自由的社會主義；事實上，台灣社會本身在日常生活型態中就含有明顯的自由社會主義的痕跡。但是，台灣絕不會容忍社會主義精神脫序到共產主義的地步。若然，那種社會主義就是敵人，沒有討論的餘地。台灣海峽彼岸的中國共產黨（CCP），就屬於這一類。
1. Opposing Communism – Taiwan is not that much against liberal socialism. In fact,there is a rather obvious strain of it already existing in its social life. However, Taiwan would not tolerate socialism when carried away to the extent of communism, and would take it as enemy. Period. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on the other end of the Strait falls into this category.
2. 去統。在台灣，不但老一輩了解中共天天掛在嘴邊玩弄的「統一」，只不過是其用來維持政權、控制已經被洗過腦平民的一種虛偽口號，而年輕一輩只會以荒謬視之。因而，此處並沒有用過去的「反統」一詞，而是用「去統」，表示了一種將「統一」概念徹底由腦中去除的意思。就像「大掃除」的意思一樣，老早就該扔掉的東西就把它扔掉。
2. De-Unification – Not only do the older generations realize that the jingling of
“unification” of the CCP is just a bogus slogan for upholding its regime’s control
over the brain-washed civilians, the young generation of Taiwan simply finds the
slogan ridiculous. Therefore, rather than using the term “anti-Unification” as people used to do in the past, I think “De-Unification” – the unshackling of the very idea of unification, as one can relate with the word “de-clutter”- is a better suited term.
3. 不反中，指的是對中國平民保持中性的態度。過去三年間，包括我自己以及國際輿論，已經破除了那個存在已久的迷思 – 中共CCP就等同中國。情況根本不是這樣的。中共不等同中國，更不用說等同中國人民了。中共是一個具有9千8百萬黨員的巨大政黨，但那只是住在那塊土地上的14億人當中的7%。
3. Neutralness towards Chinese Civilians – In the past three years, people in Taiwan including myself, as well as the international community, have debunked the long-existed myth that CCP Is China. No, far from it. CCP is NOT equivalent to China, let alone the Chinese people. CCP is a huge party of 98 million members and that accounts for only 7% of the 1.4 billion Chinese people living on that landmass.
簡單的算數就可以呈現真相。對任何國家，如果僅佔7%的人口可以在政治上完全控制100%的人口，唯一的可能就是實施殘酷暴力或通過暴力改變人的頭腦。
Simple math would tell the truth. In any nation, when 7% of the population politically controls 100% of the population, it would be an impossibility unless by brutal violence or total brain coercion.
中國平民本身就是受害者。其他的國家，不應該膝蓋反應式的把受害者視為天生就是邪惡的。因此，無論在心態上還是現實地緣政治考慮下，台灣社會都應該把「必反」這詞留給共產黨而不是受害的平民。
Therefore, considering the Chinese civilians are victims themselves, people from other parts of the world should not act in a knee-jerk way towards the ordinary, victimized Chinese Civilians as if they are born evil. Either under a proper mindset or the practicality associated with geopolitics, Taiwanese society should and is starting to understand this point. “Anti-“ is an attitude reserved for CCP and not intrinsically for the ordinary and mostly victimized civilians.
這才是台灣的最大公約數。然而，為了選票的政治人物及民調機構拖累了台灣。每年每月的民調都在問早已失效的問題：你偏藍還是偏綠？你贊成獨立還是統一？
Putting together the above three Elements, thus there is the New Taiwan Consensus. What’s falling behind and dragging Taiwan’s feet, are the ballot-hungry politicians and the various outdated polling agencies. They do so many so-called popular surveys every year, sometimes monthly. And they stick to the long invalid way of setting up their survey questions: Are you favoring Green (DPP) or Blue(KMT)? Are you pro-independent or Pro-unification?
這種自我設限或自我審查的問法，使得其他國家以為台灣是個分裂社會。
This kind of self-confined or self-censored surveys leave other nations the impression that Taiwan is a split society, Green or Blue, Independence or unification etc.
台灣這種導致外人認為台灣是個分裂國家的作法，實在愚蠢。如果問的問題對，台灣是沒有分裂的。例如，如果將「你贊不贊成獨立」改為「你反共不反共」，結果肯定是98%以上。
It’s such a foolish thing to do for Taiwan itself misleading outsiders into deeming Taiwan as a split country. There is absolutely no split should the right questions be asked in the surveys. For example, had the question been changed from “Are you pro-independence or anti-independence” into “Are you pro-communism or anti-communism”，then the result would have been a clear-cut 98% or even 99.5% towards “anti”.
若問「你是反中國共產黨還是反中國老百姓」，前者不會低於80%，後者不會高於20%。
Now, try this further question: “Are you anti-Chinese Communist Party, or anti-Chinese common people”, my guess is the former gets at least 80% and the latter gets 20% at most.
第三個問題：「你願不願意被共產黨統治」，保證結果是99.9%的「不願意」。
The third question: “Would you be willing to live under the Communist Rule”? That would guarantee a resounding NO answer of 99.9%.
這就是新台灣共識、社會的最大公約數，應該向世界大聲、清楚、不含糊的說出來。
This is exactly how the New Taiwan Consensus looks like – the true common denominator among a seemingly divided Taiwan. And the New Taiwan Consensus should be articulated to the rest of the world, no vagueness, no grey area and unambiguously.
不信的話，可以用上述問題做幾次民調。而且我保證，在不久的將來，所有民主國家都會端出類似「台灣共識」的政策原則。
For any surveyor or politician who still has doubts about this New Taiwan Consensus, he or she can just conduct new surveys with questions suggested as above. And, I myself am convinced, in a not-so-distant future, all democratic countries on the planet would issue national policies based on guidelines similar to the New Taiwan Consensus, for the goodness of their respective countries.
所以，台灣為什麼不這樣做呢？這可是台灣展示世界政治領導力的機會啊！
So, Hey, Taiwan! Why not put a thrust on this Taiwan Consensus to the world by publicizing it unambiguously and show some political leadership, just for once?
後記：以雙語向全球發聲，將是我接下致力的方向。所使用的這兩種文字，涵蓋了35億人口，接近地球的一半人數。這個行動，將以 「前哨預策」網站 為核心基地，其他的社交媒體，只要有傳播力道，都會被用為衛星來做整體運作。
個人的思考、判斷不一定對，您也不見得同意，但是，我保證這平台中的每一句話都是獨立的、出自內心的。而今天的台灣，乃至於世界，最缺的就是突破傳統成見、不受黨派左右、同時又知錯能改的獨立思考力量。不知您是否同意？
「前哨預策」平台將分為三步走：內容平台 – 互動平台 – 行動平台。剛誕生的它，當前還只是個內容平台，但達到一定數量的會員支持後，將加入各種新媒體形式，與會員就重要議題互動，並以「達成不同意見之間的最大公約數」為目標。一旦在會員內部形成「最大公約數」後，就構成了行動的基礎。至於行動的形式，也由願意推動或參與的會員決定。
此平台婉拒任何政黨、政府的贊助，只接受個人會員或企業會員的贊助；所有收入及贊助，均將用於「讓台灣更好」的事務上，以及推動、發揮台灣作為東亞及世界的「關鍵少數」的槓桿角色，為人類下一波文明做出量力而為的貢獻。
我只能說，十年來的不斷保持獨立，希望能換得您對「不受任何政黨、政府左右」這一點點價值的認同。
范疇
謹上
於台灣
首頁鏈接： InsightFan.com
訂閱鏈接： https://www.insightfan.com/membershipspricing/
Taiwanese pianist SLS performing the latest single from "Official HIGE DANdism", 「アポトーシス」(Apoptosis).
↓ More info down below ↓
💬SLSTalk
This is such a beautiful song with mind-blowing harmony progressions and touching melody line. I just heard it last week and I decided to make a video for it. The lyrics of this song is about the attitude toward death. If you haven't heard the original, I really recommend you check it out now.
🟧Support us on Patreon and Get Rewards!
► https://www.patreon.com/slsmusic
🎁Get MP3, Sheet Music, Exclusive Contents
📖Sheet Music
🎼https://slsmusic.gumroad.com/l/btsdC
🎼https://www.mymusicsheet.com/slsmusic/44220
✨Synthesia Video
Patreon► https://www.patreon.com/posts/55987404
YT Member► https://youtu.be/jWQYBaUQm9M
🎧Find SLSMusic on Spotify, iTunes, Apple Music, Amazon, Deezer and more
All► https://li.sten.to/slsmusic
Spotify► http://bit.ly/SLSMusicSpotify
iTunes► http://bit.ly/SLSiTunes
🎤Social Media
Website: https://www.slsmusic.net
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/slsmusictw
Twitter: https://twitter.com/slsmusictw
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/slsmusictt
🥁Direct Donation
PayPal► https://www.paypal.me/SLSMusic
歐付寶► https://www.bit.ly/DonateSLS
🙏THANKS YOU FOR SUPPORTING SLSMusic
🔵Patreon "Grand Piano"
Kater of Glencoe、Lyra Mao、かず K・、阿夜、清艵宮、棠哥
🟢Patreon "Piano"
Deemo Harlos、LitGrass Chou、Judy Tseng、Joyce Ninomiya、Gordon、炎南 白
🔴YouTube Sponser
交替的白晝與黑夜・Chia-Chi Chang
🎧 Playlists
Official Playlist
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqY5-xxyprjtckllGMQK4XljIu_5csx3z
Relaxing Piano Project
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqY5-xxyprjtu-55c25HnX1cGsXSbaPVU
Anime on Piano
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqY5-xxyprjvRFtzx5OPeWYIyncPC2JGi
🔧Equipment
●Piano / Roland RD-2000
●Camera / Panasonic LUMIX GH5
●Light / Aputure Amaran 200x
■──────────────────■
#Official髭男dism #piano #Editorial
この動画では日常会話で使われる Work の使い方を紹介します👍
📝今日のレッスンのまとめ📝
===================================
1. Work out - 運動する 0:35
・Let's work out.（運動しよう）
・That was a great workout.（とてもいい運動だったね）
・I’m going to hit the gym after work today. Do you want to come and work out together?（今日、仕事の後にフィットネスジムに行くけど、一緒に運動しない？）
2. Work out - うまくいく、良い結果が出る 1:42
・Good luck. I hope it works out!（頑張って。良い結果になるといいね！）
・Don't worry about it. I'm sure everything will work out.（心配するな。きっとうまくいくよ）
・What if it doesn't work out? What are you going to do?（もしうまく行かなかったらどうするの？）
3. Work out - 問題を解決する、人間関係を修復する 2:15
・We have to work out this issue.（この問題を解決しないといけない）
・You have to work it out with your coworker.（同僚と話し合って関係を修復しないと）
・I really hope they can work out their issues. It would be a shame to see them break up.（二人が関係を修復できるといいな。二人が別れてしまうのは残念だよ。）
4. Work toward(s) - 〜向けて頑張る 3:11
・I’m working toward(s) studying abroad.（私は留学に向けて頑張っています）
・She is working toward(s) becoming an English teacher.（彼女は英語の先生を目指して頑張っています）
・He is working hard toward(s) his goal. （彼は目標に向かってすごく頑張っています）
5. Work on - 〜に取り組む、〜に取り掛かる 4:23
・I’m working on my project.（プロジェクトに取り掛かっています）
・I need to work on my presentation.（プレゼンに取りかからないと）
・I’ll work on it right away.（すぐに取り掛かります）
6. Work on - 〜改善する、〜改める 4:54
・I’m working on my pronunciation.（私は発音に力を入れています）
・I need to work on my golf swing.（ゴルフスイングを上達させないといけない）
・He needs to work on his attitude.（彼は態度を改めないといけない）
7. Worked up - （イライラして）感情的になる、神経が高ぶる 6:22
・There’s no reason to get all worked up. Just let it go.（そんなに怒る必要はないよ。忘れなよ）
・What’s the matter? What are you so worked up about?（どうしたの？なんでそんなにイライラしているの？）
・She’s a bit worked up about drama at her work.（彼女は職場の人間関係のトラブルでちょっとイライラしています。）
⭐️Workにはこんな便利な使い方も⭐️
外国人から「Your English is really good!」と褒められた時にぴったりな返答が「Thanks. But I’m still working on it.」です。褒め言葉を素直に受け入れつつ、「より上達できるよう頑張っています」という謙虚な姿勢も同時に示すことができるとてもナチュラルな返答の仕方なので、次回ぜひ使ってみてください😉
都合が合う場合、シンプルに "That works!（その日/時間で大丈夫です）"と言います。Work は都合や予定について話すときに非常によく使われる単語の一つです。都合の意味として使われる work の使い方はこちらの動画を見てください → 「都合の尋ね方と返答の仕方（ https://youtu.be/qNx330VqPAs ）」
===================================
☆インスタやツイッターでも日常会話で使える実践的なフレーズを毎日投稿しています！
・インスタ: https://www.instagram.com/hapaeikaiwa
・ツイッター：https://twitter.com/hapaeikaiwa
☆ Spotifyオリジナル番組「English Mindset」
英語力ゼロで海外に飛び出したアスリートやクリエーター、留学経験なしの経営者などをゲストに迎え、インタビューを通して英語習得のカギとなった彼らの思考ロジックに迫る番組。 http://spoti.fi/HapaENGLISHMINDSET
☆【Hapa Buddies】Hapa英会話オンラインコミュニティ
英語が好きな仲間と一緒に楽しく英語を学びませんか？
https://hapaeikaiwa.com/buddies/
☆【Hapa英会話Podcast】生の英語を楽しく学べる
毎週金曜日、台本を一切使わないアメリカ人のリアルな日常英会話を配信。
http://hapaeikaiwa.com/podcast/
☆【Hapa英会話メルマガ】1日1フレーズ！生英語
通勤中ちょとした合間を利用して無理なく英語が学べるメルマガ『1日1フレーズ！生英語』平日の毎朝6時に配信。http://hapaeikaiwa.com/mailmagazine/
#Hapa英会話
#日常英会話
#ロサンゼルス
「餵唔到人奶，我真係好無用」、「人人都得，點解係得我兼顧唔到家庭同事業？」、「做到隻積咁都撐唔起頭家，點算好爸爸」、「我真係唔識教」……
聽到朋友咁樣批判自己，我地都會想盡辦法去安慰佢地，甚至好能夠同理對方，因為我地真心明白，餵人奶也好、兼顧家庭同事業也好、甚或喺香港要獨力養起頭家，都唔容易，能夠咬緊牙關撐下去嘅父母，點會一無是處？
之但係，當呢啲聲音唔係黎自朋友，而係我地自己嘅心聲嘅時候，你有無發覺，我地好少會安慰自己，反而會加多兩錢肉緊，批判自己。好似只有自我批評同自我懲罰先可以幫我們做得更好。
但事實係咪咁呢？
參考資料
Longe, Maratos, Gilbert, Evans, Volker, Rockliff, & Rippon. (2010). Having a word with yourself: Neural correlates of self-criticism and self-reassurance. NeuroImage, 49(2), 1849-1856.
Neff, K. (2003). The Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Self-Compassion. Self and Identity, 2(3), 223-250.
Neff, K. (2003). Self-Compassion: An Alternative Conceptualization of a Healthy Attitude Toward Oneself. Self and Identity, 2(2), 85-101.
Neff, K. (2011). Self-compassion stop beating yourself up and leave insecurity behind (1st ed.). Australia: HarperCollins ebooks.
Neff, K., & Beretvas, S. (2012). The Role of Self-compassion in Romantic Relationships. Self and Identity, 12(1), 1-21.
attitude toward 在 You Attitude in Business Writing - YouTube 的必吃
... <看更多>