關於 16 months how many words ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

These three artworks were created with soil gathered from Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak by referencing actual photos that were taken in the 60s. One of the vets, Major Andrew, still keeps many letters and photos from back then. It was very special that he shared them with my team and I. From the lot, we chose three images: the first showing the veterans and the airplane they flew in, the second showing Major Andrew’s wedding day (with words by Major Wong), the third showing the pain and realities of war.

We had the privilege of talking to a few of our veterans in the research process and got to hear some incredibly inspiring and heartbreaking stories. Stories of not seeing families for months on end, missing the childhood years of their children and losing close friends in combat. They understood the cost but they also knew that someone had to do it. It was most touching to me to see how these veterans came from all different races, backgrounds and various parts of Malaysia - peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak. One of them told me, “Why would race matter when you’re fighting for your country?”

Footages of these artworks are shown in the documentary, “Tanah Tumpahnya Darah Kita” (Our Blood Poured Over this Land) on Astro tonight at 9pm (GMT +8) on Channel 100.

Photos by Aaron Wong.

///
Artwork credits:
Artist: Red Hong Yi
Fabricator: @huakhuak_official
Red’s art team: @gnuhceehc (project lead), @wcyann, @esmondsit , @unreality.kai, @kashinies, @shirriesun, @phang_lim, @huiqi.chan.
Videography: @kernwei
Photography: @aaronwongys, @annicelyn

“Tanah Tumpahnya Darah Kita” will be shown on Astro tonight 9pm (GMT + 😎 at channel 100.
Production by @nagaddb & @mojofilmskl.
Apprentices supported under the @cendanamalaysia Apprenticeship Programme in Collaboration with Studio Red Hong Yi.
///

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”

【澄清唬爆米花教室：被大內宣淹沒的美國總統署名投書】

先說這篇沒有圖，因為太重要不能亂放圖

在歷史上，從沒有美國總統親自投書到中華民國的報紙。但是在109年10月22日，美國總統參選人拜登以「More Prosperous Future For Our Families」(定稿中文標題：為我們家庭更繁榮的未來)，以華人為主體，台灣人為核心訴求，投書聯合報系的世界日報，強調他願意與中國合作而非對抗，鄙棄川普的仇中獵巫，願意與華人聯手，但更重視台灣人的健保經驗，不願台灣人為美國火中取栗而是共同繁榮。

但在一片大奇特的大內宣中，美國總統參選人的投書竟然在台灣地區被忽視。且不說拜登明明在聲譽卓著的 IBD/TIPP民調持續領先，比起川普根本鼓吹台灣人火中取栗(你對抗，我賺軍火，去跟大陸人死嗑來增加我談判勒索本錢)。

拜登不只親自署名投書，還誠懇說明他對台灣/兩岸的四大重點，根本是史上最誠懇與重要的待遇。既然親綠親川普主流媒體不報，那福編來報。

★
一、拜登堅持稱台灣是 leading democracy (領導性的民主政體)，表示其無意支持台獨立場(不稱國家)

二、拜登大篇幅強調川普仇中、卸責不科學的推卸問題給中國，造成亞裔的困擾與災難，而這不是美國總統應為。(打了那些整天喊支那賤畜以為自己就會成為高等美國人的台灣地區背祖中國人的臉)

三、拜登大談健保對一般百姓重要性，表示他珍視台灣的健保經驗，也是未來與台灣的合作重心。

四、與其獵巫與仇中，他更重視與中國的合作，希望聯盟對世界更有幫助(雖然舉例醫療與氣候，但也只是舉例) 表示願意以兩大強權的合作，謀取更多世界利益。

其他我 不多說，請看原文與譯文。

#拜登給中華民國台灣與聯合報系的面子真的太大了
#聯合報系真正展現實力
#美國總統投書首中華民國系報紙
#大內宣只在意把我們當馬前卒的喇叭川普

為我們家庭更繁榮的未來／前副總統喬瑟夫．拜登

時局多艱，我們國家處在十字路口，正面臨疾病大流行、經濟大衰退，和一場將決定我們未來很長一段時間的選舉。

今年 我們看到美國最好的一面

今年，我們看到美國最好的一面引領我們向前：英勇的醫師、護士、日常雜貨商、餐館業主、必要行業工作者 — 而其中，包括許許多多的亞裔美國人。

今年 我們也看到美國最糟情況

但我們也看到最糟的情況：亞裔美國人誤因新冠病毒遭仇視的行為比比皆是，某種程度上，是因為川普總統發布的仇恨言論所致。亞裔美國人被責備、被唾罵、被攻擊；家園、商家和汽車被侮辱性標記破壞；年幼的孩童被刺傷，還有一名89歲的奶奶，在不斷升級的仇恨文化中遭人火焚。

這不該是我們原本的樣子。

亞裔美國人 使我們國家變強大

近兩個世紀以來，亞裔美國人使我們的國家變得強大 — 從掘金礦工，到加速我們崛起的鐵路和工廠工人，再到推動我們向前邁進的科學家、建築師、藝術家和企業家們。多年來，他們的勇氣、犧牲和成功，為美國夢注入動力，也讓美國穩為自由的燈塔與世界的希望。

川普卻不懂 傷了移民國價值觀

川普總統不懂這些。他帶頭攻擊我們作為移民之國的價值觀，甚至在我們的邊境，拆散成千上萬的孩童與父母。即便在這場大流行到來之前，我們的仇恨犯罪就已達到16年以來的新高。而如今，為了轉移自己抗疫失敗、未能保護我們國家的過失，無論是否因此導致上千反亞裔的種族歧視事件，他仍堅持把新冠病毒稱作「中國病毒」。

作為總統 我捍衛每人的美國夢

措辭很重要，總統措辭更為重要。作為總統，我將捍衛每個人的美國夢，讓每一勤奮努力的家庭，享有通向繁榮和美好未來的公平機會。我將反對任何形式的種族歧視，指示司法部優先處理仇恨犯罪，以彌合仇恨與分裂的傷口，而非煽風點火。

川普失敗 他讓我們的經濟崩盤

唐納德·川普早在今年1月就已知道新冠病毒的致命性，卻未採取任何行動。現在，超過22萬美國人因此失去生命，約3000萬人失去工作、工時和薪水，五分之一的小商家關門。川普失敗的領導力讓我們的經濟崩盤 — 他總統當得愈久，得以完全回歸正軌的時間也愈久。

我會控制疫情 讓我們重回生機

八個月過去了，川普仍然沒有(抗疫)計畫。而我有。

首先要擔起責任，努力控制疫情，讓我們重回生機。我將執行早在3月就擬定的計畫，擊敗新冠病毒。我將聽取科學家、專家的意見；保護我們的家庭；讓新冠檢測、治療， #以及最終的疫苗免費，並對所有人開放。

我會重建經濟 實質救助小商家

我將馬上開始重建更好的經濟，為數百萬遭受重創的小商家提供實質救助。他們是我們社區的生命線 — 但川普腐敗的復甦作法棄他們於不顧，只把紓困資金匯集到大公司手中。75%的亞裔小企業主，未能獲得任何首輪紓困金。這是錯誤的，我已要求確保員工在50人以下的小企業獲得紓困金，我也將增加他們獲得優惠和資金的長遠渠道，減輕阻礙移民業主的語言障礙。

我不會對年收40萬元以下者加稅

質言之，我的經濟復甦計畫將回報以工作，而不只是財富，將創造未來數百萬優薪工作。(信評機構)穆迪的獨立經濟學者發現，比起川普總統的作法，我的計畫會創造多出700萬的工作，以及超過1兆元的經濟增長。我也不會對任何年收入40萬元以下者加稅 —別懷疑。相反地，我還將確保超級富豪和大公司最終支付本應承擔的份額。

讓父母能付學費 讓醫保更平價

我一路走來，都在為工薪和中產家庭而戰；他們之中有許多勤勉奮鬥的移民，來到美國是為更好的生活。我將幫助父母有能力支付子女的優質教育、提高教師薪酬，並讓絕大多數家庭免費就讀公立學院。我將讓照顧年邁父母變得更容易，讓醫療保險更平價。川普現在要通過法院，廢除「可負擔健保法」，在一場致命大流行之中，剝奪數千萬人的醫療保險，這毫無道理。

與盟友並肩 深化與台灣的關係

同時，新冠病毒證明美國不能自外於世界。從重建我們最親近夥伴的關係開始，我們必須與其他國家攜手合作，應對影響我們所有人的國際挑戰。我們是一個太平洋強國，將與盟友並肩，增進我們在亞太地區共享的繁榮、安全與價值。這其中就包括深化與台灣這個居領先地位的民主政體、主要經濟體，以及科技重鎮的關係。台灣也是開放社會可以有效控制新冠病毒的閃亮典範。

更新領導力 符合美利益與中合作

我們應對中國的方式，會聚焦增強美國競爭力，再興國內優勢，並更新我們在海外的聯盟與領導力。我們將在符合美國利益的領域與中國合作，包括公共衛生和氣候變遷。

讓家庭團聚 修復破碎的移民系統

美國向來不只靠強大的國力，而是用身為榜樣的實力領導世界。要切實重現此景，我們也必須修復破碎的移民系統，讓家庭團聚，確保美國繼續吸引全球最出色與最聰明的人。

我將會傾聽 重塑我們熱愛的國魂

我競選是為讓美國更好的重建，重建美國作為一個充滿機會，團結和有全新開始的國家；一個由數代移民讓其強大的地方；一個所有人都能發聲、每張選票都有價值的地方。我將引領這些議題，更重要的是，我會傾聽。所以，請確保你今天將選票投出。

讓我們一起，重塑我們熱愛的國魂。

(世界日報華盛頓記者羅曉媛／譯)

More Prosperous Future For Our Families
by Former Vice President Joseph Biden for World Journal

These are tough times. Our country is at a crossroads, facing a pandemic, a recession, and an election that will decide our futures for a very long time.

This year, we've seen the best of America carry us forward: heroic doctors, nurses, grocers, restaurant owners, essential workers–including so many Asian Americans.

But we've also seen the worst: acts of hate against Asian Americans wrongly blamed for COVID-19, spurred on, in part, by hateful rhetoric from President Trump. They've been screamed at, spit on, and assaulted. Homes, businesses, and cars vandalized with slurs. Small children stabbed. An 89-year-old grandmother set on fire amid this rising culture of hate.

This is not who we are.

For nearly two centuries, Asian Americans have made our country strong–from the gold miners and railroad and factory workers who helped to power our rise; to the scientists, architects, artists, and entrepreneurs who are helping to drive us forward now. For years, their courage, sacrifices, and success have powered the American Dream and helped America stand as a beacon of freedom and hope to the world.

President Trump doesn't get that. He has led an assault on our values as a nation of immigrants, even tearing thousands of children from their parents' arms at our border. Hate crimes against people are at a 16-year-high, even before this pandemic. And now, to deflect blame for his failure to protect our nation from this crisis, he insists on calling COVID-19 the "China virus," no matter how many thousands of reported racist incidents against Asian Americans it encourages.

Words matter – and a president's words matter even more. As President, I'll defend the American Dream for everyone, so every hardworking family has the same fair shot at prosperity and a better future. I'll stand against racism in every form, directing the Justice Department to prioritize hate crimes, and working to heal the wounds of hatred and division, not fan the flames.

Donald Trump knew how deadly COVID-19 was back in January and did nothing to stop it. Now, more than 220,000 Americans are dead. Some 30 million have lost jobs, hours, wages. One in five small businesses have shut down. Trump's failed leadership has tanked our economy – and the longer he's president, the longer it'll take to get it fully up and running again.

We're eight months in, but Trump still has no plan. I do.

It starts with taking responsibility and doing the hard work to control this pandemic and get our lives back. I'll implement the plan I've laid out since March to beat COVID-19. I'll listen to scientists and experts; protect our families; and make testing, treatment, and any eventual vaccine free and available to everyone.

I'll get right to work building our economy back better – getting real relief out to millions of hard-hit small businesses. They're the lifeblood of our communities – but Trump's corrupt recovery passed them by, funneling funds to big corporations instead. Some 75% of Asian-owned small businesses weren't expected to get any first-round stimulus funds at all. It's wrong. I've called for ensuring small businesses with less than 50 employees get new relief funds. And I'll boost their long-term access to credit and capital, and work to ease the language barriers that can hold back immigrant entrepreneurs.

Through it all, my economic recovery plan will reward work, not just wealth, creating millions of good paying jobs of the future. Independent economists at Moody's found that my plan creates 7 million more jobs – and $1 trillion more in economic growth – than President Trump's would. And I won't raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000 a year – period. Instead, I'll make sure the super wealthy and big corporations finally pay their fair share.

I've fought my whole career for working and middle class families – so many of them hard-working immigrants who came to America in search of a better life. I'll help parents afford a quality education for their kids, boosting teacher pay and making public college free for most families. I'll make it easier to care for aging parents, and make health care more affordable. Trump is in court right now trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, stripping tens of millions of people of health coverage in the middle of a deadly pandemic. It makes no sense.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 is proof that the United States can't isolate itself from the world. We have to work with other nations to meet global challenges that impact us all, starting by rebuilding our relationships with our closest partners. We're a Pacific power, and we'll stand with friends and allies to advance our shared prosperity, security, and values in the Asia-Pacific region. That includes deepening our ties with Taiwan, a leading democracy, major economy, technology powerhouse – and a shining example of how an open society can effectively contain COVID-19. And our approach to China will focus on boosting American competitiveness, revitalizing our strengths at home, and renewing our alliances and leadership abroad. We'll work to collaborate with China when it's in our interest, including on public health and climate change.

America has always led the world not only with the example of our power, but the power of our example. To truly do that again, we also have to fix our broken immigration system, keeping families together and ensuring the United States continues to draw the world's best and brightest.

I'm running to build America back better, as a country of opportunity, unity, and new beginnings. A place made strong by generations of immigrants. A place where everyone has a voice and every vote counts. I'll lead on these issues, and more importantly, I'll listen. So please make sure you get your vote in today. Together we'll restore the soul of this nation we love.

#福編編譯? (編譯個鬼，是世界日報了不起！ 大內宣與遍地綠媒鬼遮眼)