關於 in this regard meaning ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

MONSTER TAIPEI INTERNATIONAL LOTTERY全球網路抽選活動
Monster Taipei x A Lei x Yesart Gallery - Agogo & Amigo

Monster Taipei在2016年邀請台灣藝術家－阿咧 (A-Lei) 與日本藝術家中村萌 (Moe Nakamura) 於當年的台北國際玩具創作大展「展中展」聯合展出一場華麗的「土木進行曲」，當時的首度合作受到熱烈迴響，現今兩位藝術家在國際藝術舞台上持續大放異彩，時間回到今年，阿咧受椿畫廊邀請，即將與中村萌及其他七位日本藝術家共同於東京椿畫廊聯合展出，展覽資訊：SPES（拉丁文:希望之意）-9 Artists Group Exhibition- 19 June－ 10 July, 2021

這次 Monster Taipei 與友好單位 Yesart Gallery 意識畫廊繼阿咧首件搪膠作品大象多多後，再次攜手合作推出－”Agogo & Amigo”，並由香港 How2work 團隊製作操刀下，趣味感十足的 Agogo 和小夥伴 Amigo 搪膠作品就此誕生！

實體呈現的造型與細節近似還原了阿咧每件陶塑原作中極具療癒姿態的手感，作品包裝上特別開版手工製作，讓每對狗狗們配有獨棟景觀豪宅，包裝俏皮的粉色外牆皆有印刷阿咧童趣的插畫，絕對值得珍藏！雙犬去年 TTF 搶先曝光隨即引發高度詢問，現在正式超萌吸睛登場！

此件作品將採用全球線上抽選寄送方式販售，想入手的朋友們請繼續查看以下抽選資訊。

抽選販售商品：Agogo & Amigo
藝術家: 阿咧 A-Lei
材質: Vinyl Toy
Limited Edition of 250
Monster Taipei x Yesart Gallery 共同出品
售價: NT.5980/set
尺寸: Agogo: 11cm (H) , Amigo: 7.5cm (H)
*每件作品皆為手工上色 ，顏色呈現略有不同，請以實品為準。

抽選表單填寫時間：
2021/06/19(六) 20:00 ~ 2021/06/22(二) 20:00

抽選表單連結：
https://forms.gle/wqh9CRa2W1Fvmegz8

販售規則：
1.此商品採線上抽選方式販售，欲參加抽選的朋友請填寫 Google 表單，需登入 Google 帳號，一人一個帳號限填寫一次，如有重複填寫資料者或資料填寫不齊全者將直接取消抽選資格。

2.請於表單開放時間內填寫，逾時不候。

3.抽選將會使用電腦亂數程式隨機抽選，抽選結果將於 2021/06/24(四) 當天 21:00 前以簡訊及 e-mail 通知中選者，未中選者不另行通知。

4.中選者需於收到中選通知後三日內 2021/06/27(日)
結束前完成付款，如中選者未在時間內完成交易將直接取消購買資格並列入永久黑名單，請務必確認是否能在規定時間內付款再參與抽選活動。

5.中選者付款及取貨方式
(1) 台灣地區中選者 : 提供上海商銀帳戶匯款郵寄。 (運費$80)
(2) 海外地區中選者 : 僅提供 PayPal 付款 (需另加 5% PayPal 手續費)，依所在地區的不同，運費金額將會另行估算，隨中選信通知附上運費金額。

6.抽選表單上填寫的收件人及地址無法更改，欲更改者視同放棄購買資格。

7.申請抽選將視為皆已同意以上規則，Monster Taipei 保有最終販售及修改之權利。

Monster Taipei 台北怪獸國際有限公司

In 2016, Monster Taipei invited Taiwanese artist A-Lei and Japanese artist Moe Nakamura to co-exhibition during the Taipei Toy Festival. The two artists continue to shine on the international art scene.
This year, A-Lei is invited by Tsubaki Gallery to exhibit with Moe Nakamura and seven other Japanese artists at Tsubaki Gallery in Tokyo.
Exhibition information: SPES (Latin: Meaning of Hope)
9 Artists Group Exhibition- 19 June - 10 July, 2021

After A-Lei’ s first Designer vinyl work "大象多多 DoDo", Monster Taipei and Yesart Gallery have co-work again recently, producing by Hong Kong How2work team, and the interesting vinyl work “Agogo and Amigo” was born!

The appearance and details approximately re-appears the touch of A-Lei's original pottery sculpture and the healing feeling.
The packaging work is specially hand-made, so that each pair of dogs come with a family landscape mansion. The playful pink walls are all printed with illustrations of A-Lei’s childishness, which are definitely worth collecting! The first TTF exposure of "Agogo & Amigo" last year immediately triggered high levels of asking, and now it is officially released!

"Agogo & Amigo" will be sold by global online lottery delivery, please continue to check the following information.

Lottery merchandise : Agogo & Amigo
Artist : A-Lei
Material : Vinyl Toy
Limited Edition : 250 sets
Presented : Monster Taipei x Yesart Gallery
Price : NT.5980/set
Size : Agogo: 11cm(H), Amigo: 7.5cm(H)
*Each work is hand-painted, and the color is slightly different, please refer to the actual product.

lottery form filling time：
2021/06/19(SAT.) 20:00 ~ 2021/06/22(TUE.) 20:00

Sales rules:
1. This art work is sold by global online lottery. Friends who want to participate in the lottery, please fill out the Google form by your Google account. Each account is limited to one time only. If you fill in the information repeatedly or fill in the information incompletely, you will be directly disqualified from the lottery. .

2. Please fill in the form within the opening hours, overtime filing will not be accepted.

3. The lottery will be randomly selected using a computer random number program. The results of the lottery will be notified on 2021/06/24(THU) by SMS and e-mail before 21:00. Those who lost the chance will not be notified.

4. Winners of the lottery need to complete the payment within three days 2021/06/27(SUN) after receiving the notification. If they didn't complete the payment within the time limit, the purchase qualification will be directly cancelled and be included in the permanent blacklist. Please confirm whether able to pay within the specified time before participating in the lottery.

5. Way of purchase
(1) Winners in Taiwan : Provide Shanghai Commercial Bank Account to remit.( NT$80 for shipping)
(2) Winners from Overseas : Only PayPal payment is available (additional 5% PayPal handling fee is required). Depending on the region, the shipping amount will be estimated separately, and the shipping amount will be attached to the notification.

6. The recipient and address on the lottery form cannot be changed, and those who wish to change will be regard as giving up the qualification.

7. Application for lottery will be deemed to have agreed to the above rules, Monster Taipei reserves the right to final sales and modification.

MONSTER TAIPEI INTERNATIONAL INC.

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”

新刊預覽 👀⚡️⚡️⚡️

Voices of Photography 攝影之聲
Issue 29 : #被攝影史──成為影像的台灣
History of the Photographed:
Taiwan as an Image

延續我們對於攝影史的關注，本期審視屬於我們自身的攝影經驗──被攝影的歷史。從台灣的殖民史出發，自十九世紀中葉以降歷經的人類學調查採集、二十世紀初隘勇線推進下的暴力顯影，到帝國博覽會裡的「台灣」意象與人種展示──這是一段最為系統性地將台灣影像化的初始時期。我們如何成為被攝影的對象？如何化為一具科學標本和一幅想像圖騰？如何在視覺上被納編（或排除）於國族與文化的整頓編程，並糾結至今？此一影像的潛歷史──被攝影的歷史──是我們返視「攝影史」的一處起點。

藉此，本期試圖反詰「歷史」，思考致使我們「成為影像」、「進入攝影史」的支配與佈局，嘗試突破以往「攝影（者）的歷史」框架，開啟我們的「被攝影（者）的歷史」覺察，或許將能發現對我們而言更為重要的攝影的歷史遺產，生成屬於我們的另翼影像史觀。

專題中收錄的影像與文論，標記了我們在「被攝影」的歷史經驗裡的複雜和衝突──我們從已故人類學者胡家瑜對早年台灣人類學田野調查至戰後發展的介紹專論開始，探看影像採集的知識化歷程及當代意涵；黃翰荻追尋日本人類學者鳥居龍藏與森丑之助在殖民年代的台灣原住民族群踏查足印，細述二人巨大的歷史身影；高俊宏在總督府「理蕃時期」的諸多「討伐」寫真帖中，重新諦視「歸順者」肖像裡的幽微目光；瓦歷斯．諾幹以解／反殖民書寫，展現自身與族人生命經驗裡實切的影像歷史感知；松田京子則以東京拓殖博覽會中對殖民地的活人陳列展演，析解形塑「台灣」的視覺策略。

本期Artist’s Showcase單元，我們與藝術家葉偉立進行長篇訪談，呈現他這些年來以行動介入所構成的獨特影像場域，記錄其未曾間斷的勞作沉思。而在影像論述單元，本期新闢由影像研究者李立鈞執筆的科學攝影專欄，揭示平時隱沒在科學實踐中的「影像問題」，首篇從圖繪細菌與拍攝細菌在十九世紀引發的論爭談起，一探科學家對於攝影「客觀性」的認知辯證。謝佩君接續前期對於影像／視覺理論的引介，深入闡論歐美學界近年如何反駁過去以視覺機具作為現代性發展的線性觀點。黎健強探究香港攝影源流的連載系列，揭載「作為影像的香港」在1850年代末首次出現於可供西方觀眾賞玩的遠東立體照片。此外本期亦特邀黃建宏撰文紀念近期辭世的法國哲學家貝拿爾．斯蒂格勒，記述其影像哲理綿延的技術與時間之論。

在本期出版（焦頭爛額）之際，也正是《攝影之聲》邁入第十年的開端，回想起來真是一段不可思議的旅程。感謝所有的讀者共同撐起這份小刊，也要再次感謝參與《攝影之聲》、支持我們的朋友與工作伙伴，給予我們面對艱困的勇氣，繼續在蜿蜒的道路上行進。
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

購書 Order | http://bit.ly/vop-29
台灣讀者免運費優惠中！
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

As we continue on the topic of the history of photography, we turn to our own photography experiences in this issue – our history of being photographed. It takes root in Taiwan’s colonial history, from the collection of anthropological surveys in the 19th century, to the acts of violence at the defence lines as they pushed on during the Japanese colonial era in the early 20th century, as well as the exhibition of the “Taiwanese” imagery and ethnicity at various expositions held during the Japanese colonial rule. These form the beginnings of a systematic effort to visualize Taiwan. How did we become the photographed, a scientific specimen, a totemic image? How did we become visually part of (or excluded from) the rectification process of nationality and culture, that continues to trouble us till now? The veiled history of such an image – the history of being photographed – guides the beginning of our journey of looking back at the “history of photography”.

With this, we attempt to cross-examine “history” and think through the control and disposition that led us into “becoming an imagery” and “going into the history of photography”, hoping to break free from the existing framework of “the history of the photograph(er)” and enlighten our awareness of the “history of the photographed”. We reckon this could allow us to discover the historical heritage of photography that is even more important to us and generate our very own alternative view of the history of photography.

The collection of imagery and essays in this series marks the complexity and conflicts in our historical experience of “being photographed”. We begin with the late anthropologist Hu Chia-Yu’s field research of Taiwan’s anthropology from the early years to the post-war period as we explore the knowledge-based development and contemporary meaning of imagery collection. Huang Han-Di traces the footsteps of Japanese anthropologists Torii Ryuzo and Mori Ushinosuke in their study of the Taiwanese indigenous peoples in the colonial era, detailing the historical impact that they had. Kao Jun-Honn takes a second look at the faint gaze in the eyes of those who had pledged allegiance, as captured in the many portraits of the “submissives” kept at the Governor-General’s office during the Japanese rule. Walis Nokan expresses his and his fellow people’s real perception of the history of photography as they had experienced it in his de-/anti-colonization writings. Matsuda Kyoko analyses the visual strategy of shaping “Taiwan” through the living displays at the Tokyo Colonization Exposition of 1912.

In this issue’s “Artist’s Showcase”, we feature an in-depth interview with artist Yeh Wei-Li, showing our readers his unique field of imagery that extends from his art of intervention, a record of his neverending contemplation with regard to labor and art. Moving on to essays on visual imagery, we present a new scientific photography column by imagery researcher Lee Li-Chun, who unveils the “imagery problem” that underlies scientific practice, beginning with cognitive dialectics of “objectivity” of photography by scientists that stemmed from the debate sparked by illustrating and photographing bacteria in the 19th century. Hsieh Pei-Chun continues with her introduction to imagery/visual theory from an earlier issue, and explains in detail how Western academia has refuted the existing linear view of visual machinery as a modern development. Edwin K. Lai’s series on the origins and development of Hong Kong photography tells us about the first 3D photograph from the Far East that aimed to entertain a Western audience with “Hong Kong as an image” in the late 1850s. In addition, we specially invited Huang Chien-Hung to commemorate the French philosopher Bernard Stiegler, who had recently passed, and the continuous techniques and time that stems from his philosophy of imagery.

At the same time as we (run off our feet to) prepare for the publication of this issue, Voices of Photography is going into its 10th year, and what an incredible journey it has been. We sincerely thank all our readers for keeping us going, and express our heartfelt gratitude once again to all our friends and partners who have worked with us and given us the courage to overcome our difficulties to march on on this winding road.
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

本期目錄 Contents
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

文化調查、標本收藏與攝影
——十九世紀中葉起的台灣調查採集動力與歷史脈絡
Cultural Investigations, Material Collections and Photography:
Agencies and Historical Contexts in Taiwan Since the Mid 19th Century
#胡家瑜 Hu Chia-Yu

「空中鳥跡」與「依風彩畫」——寄鳥居龍藏與森丑之助
“The Trail of Birds in Flight” and “Paintings in the Wind”: A Letter to Torii Ryuzo and Mori Ushinosuke
#黃翰荻 Huang Han-Di

「不看」的能指——關於理蕃攝影中的「歸順者」之眼
The Significance of “Not Seeing”: On the Eyes of the “Submissives” in the Photography of the Aboriginal Taiwanese
#高俊宏 Kao Jun-Honn

關於日據時期老照片的解／反殖民書寫練習
Interpreting Old Photographs from the Japanese Occupation Period De-/Anti-Colonization Practice Writings
#瓦歷斯諾幹 Walis Nokan

人類的「展示」與殖民地再現——以1912年拓殖博覽會為中心
The “Exhibition” of Mankind and the Resurgence of Colonization: A Look at the Tokyo Colonial Exposition of 1912
#松田京子 Matsuda Kyoko

如何「做」視覺民族誌？——讀《學做視覺民族誌》
How to “do” a visual ethnography?: Understanding Doing Visual Ethnography
#顧錚 Gu Zheng

我們可以祛除帝國主義嗎？——《潛在的歷史》的指引
Can We Unlearn Imperialism?
Methods and Lessons from Potential History by Ariella Azoulay
史蒂芬．席海 #StephenSheehi

Artist’s Showcase: #葉偉立 Yeh Wei-Li

故事之野——訪葉偉立
A Field of Stories: Interview with Yeh Wei-Li
#李威儀 Lee Wei-I

「可怖的客觀性」——十九世紀的顯微攝影
“Dreadful Objectivity”: Photomicrography in the 19th Century
#李立鈞 Lee Li-Chun

偉大的否定——負影像史
The Great Disavowal: A Counter History of Image
#謝佩君 Hsieh Pei-Chun

追夢人的藥控——離散的「貝拿爾．斯蒂格勒」影像
Pharmakon by Dreamer: Discrete Image of Bernard Stiegler
#黃建宏 Huang Chien-Hung

浴火重生的香港攝影（上）——最早為香港留下照片的攝影師
Hong Kong Photography: Rising from the Ashes (I) – The Photographer Who Left Behind the First Images of Hong Kong
#黎健強 Edwin K. Lai

攝影書製作現場⑤ : 便利堂
Photobook Making Case Study #5: Benrido
#羅苓寧 Lo Ling-Ning

七等生 : 重回沙河
Qi Deng Sheng(1939-2020): A Return to Sand River
李威儀 Lee Wei-I

＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

更多訊息 More info :
www.vopmagazine.com