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

歐洲的兩名人權活動家也通過視頻發言。Soteria International創始人康拉德·斯文寧格指出，2007年的勝利（太極門在三場法庭審判中無罪）並沒有回報太極門弟子的無數小時花了很多時間來對抗一開始就不應該提出的指控。他還表示，稅案未破，勝利才算徹底，冤枉太極門的人將受到嚴懲。歐洲宗教自由論壇主席埃里克·魯（Eric Roux）稱台灣是“世界上最偉大的民主國家之一”，這更讓人難以理解，不誠實的公務員被允許將迫害太極門的行為推向了深淵。 2007 年的判決後數年。Roux 說，民主國家的不公正比極權政體中發生的更加嚴重，因為它們可能會降低整個世界的民主標準。
Two human right activists from Europe also spoke via videos. Konrad Swenninger, founder of Soteria International, noted that the 2007 victory (Tai Ji Men was acquitted in three instances of court trials) did not repay the countless hours Tai Ji Men dizi had spent fighting accusations that should never have been filed in the first place. He also said that victory will not be complete until the tax case will also be solved, and those who unjustly and illegally persecuted Tai Ji Men will be punished. Eric Roux, chairperson of the European Interreligious Forum for Religious Freedom, called Taiwan “one of the great democracies in the world,” which makes even less understandable how dishonest civil servants were allowed to bring the persecution of Tai Ji Men to its bitter end, years after the 2007 decision. Injustices in democratic countries, Roux said, are worse than those occurring in totalitarian regimes, because they may lower the standards of democracy in the entire world.

14th Anniversary of Tai Ji Men’s Acquittal Celebrated in Taipei
07/19/2021MASSIMO INTROVIGNEA+ | A-
On July 13, a successful web conference remembered what happened, and highlighted the issues yet to be solved.

https://bitterwinter.org/14th-anniversary-of-tai-ji-mens-acquittal-celebrated-in-taipei/

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”

【2020 最強魔法💫成果回顧】

各位同學好 🧙‍♂️
請翻到魔法課本2020頁 📚
讓我們一起看看今年的成果回顧

✔️台美關係強健，堅實合作夥伴
✔️防疫連結世界，世界看見台灣
✔️台歐關係深厚，交流成果亮眼
✔️美歐非設館處，擴大戰略布局
✔️全球議員集力，公開表達挺台
✔️能見度續提升，贏得國際肯定

小編還精心準備辣個圖片筆記 📝
有著滿滿魔法亮點 🪄
記得要看完嘿 👉🏽 https://reurl.cc/VXk4Mb

#魔法小編筆寫禿了也變強了
#連結世界 #布局全球
#貢獻國際 #彰顯臺灣
#明年也要加油喔

𝒜 𝐿𝑜𝑜𝓀 𝐵𝒶𝒸𝓀 𝑜𝓃 ②⓪②⓪
Taiwan has been faced with many challenges in terms of diplomacy in 2020, despite this, MOFA has continued to uphold Taiwan’s sovereignty, dignity and rights, raising Taiwan’s international profile and forging connections around the world.

1⃣ Taiwan-US Stronger relationship
🔺US Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar II and Under Secretary of State Keith Krach visited Taiwan
🔺 The inaugural US-Taiwan Economic Prosperity Partnership Dialogue
🔺 Joint initiatives on #education, #science and #technology and cooperation in infrastructure financing in #NewSouthboundPolicy countries
🔺 Seven virtual Global Cooperation and Training Framework workshops

2⃣ Pandemic-Prevention Performance
🔺 𝟓𝟎 million✨ surgical face masks and other #PPE donated to over 𝟖𝟎✨ countries around the world
🔺 Increased engagement with other countries on pandemic-prevention cooperation
🔺 MOFA Minister gave 𝟓𝟎✨ interviews to international media
🔺 Former Vice President Chen Chien-jen gave testimony to a #UK Parliamentary Committee
🔺 Digital Minister Audrey Tang’s participated in a range of virtual meetings with government officials, think tanks and schools in the US, Canada, Japan and Europe

3⃣ Closer Taiwan-Europe ties
🔺 Senate President Miloš Vystrčil of the #CzechRepublic led a delegation to Taiwan
🔺 Exchange and cooperation with Europe in the wake of EU’s Europe-Asia Connectivity Strategy
🔺 President Tsai Ing-wen gave opening addresses for the Copenhagen Democracy Summit
🔺 President Tsai and Minister Joseph Wu addressed the Forum 2000 Conference
🔺 Parliaments of several European countries expressed their support for Taiwan

4⃣ New Overseas Offices
🔺 New offices in #Somaliland, #Guam and #AixEnProvence this year

5⃣ Global support for Taiwan
🔺 European #FormosaClub expanded its ranks to over 100 members from over 10 countries
🔺 Taiwan-friendly parliamentarians in #LatinAmerica and #Africa established their own chapters, with 144 members from 17 countries and 181 members from 29 countries respectively
🔺 The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (#IPAC) expressed support for Taiwan and for the Taiwan Model of pandemic prevention
🔺 𝟏,𝟕𝟎𝟎✨ parliamentarians from over 𝟖𝟎✨ countries called for Taiwan’s inclusion in the #WHO during the resumed WHO session

6⃣ Global Profile
🔺 US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen openly expressed thanks to Taiwan
🔺 Over 𝟑,𝟓𝟎𝟎✨ positive international media reports this year
🔺 President Tsai won 2020 ALEC International Pioneer Award and was listed by TIME Magazine as one of the most influential leaders this year
🔺 Taiwan shortlisted for The Economist Country of the Year

【An open letter to Dr Tedros 一封致予譚德塞博士的公開信】

This is an open letter to Dr Tedros, the Director General of the WHO, in response to the accusations against Taiwan during the 8th of April WHO press conference.
這是一封致予世界衛生組織幹事長譚德塞博士的公開信，並針對其於4/8世衛記者會上對臺灣的公開指控，提出回應。

Dear Dr Tedros,
I am Vivi Lin from Taiwan, a current undergraduate student studying Infectious Diseases in the UK.
親愛的譚德塞博士，
我是Vivi Lin，一位目前正在英國念傳染病的臺灣大學生。

Upon hearing your response in the press conference today, I was utterly shocked and saddened that such misleading allegations could come from a supposedly respected health professional and the head of the world’s most influential international health organisation.
今天在聽聞您，作為現今世界上最具影響力的醫衛組織（WHO）的領導人，於世衛記者會上提出針對臺灣的不實指控，我深感錯愕及失望。

As a student who has been working closely with Taiwanese and British Medical and Health-related NGOs, I can affirm that there has never been any disrespectful comments from our government and our diplomats towards you and the African continent due to race, culture or skin colour.
身為一名在臺灣及英國的多個醫衛非政府組織服務的學生，我可以肯定地說，臺灣官方從未針對您及非洲人民，做出任何基於種族、文化或膚色的負面評論。


I am aware that there are various petitions online urging for your resignation from the WHO. However, none of the requests or criticisms were based on discriminations against your race or skin colour, nor people from the African continent.
我知道現在網路上有許多要求您辭去世衛幹事長職務的連署，但這些要求，都並非基於您的種族、膚色，或是針對非洲人民的歧視。

Taiwan has been striving to contribute as much as possible to the international community and to be a part of the global team in combating this pandemic. Although we have been excluded from the WHO, we have never given up. Our government has done an exemplary job in containing the virus, a feat that has been praised by officials and health professionals from all around the world. And now, as we have some spare capacity, we are sending aid to our allies and other countries, including those in America, Europe and in Africa who have been harshly impacted by the outbreak.

臺灣一直以來都非常努力地在為國際社會的醫衛做出貢獻，我們也始終希望能在這場全球傳染病戰役中，與世界站在一起。
即便我們被世衛排除在外，臺灣也從未放棄貢獻一己之力。
臺灣在這次COVID19防疫上的傑出成果，是世界有目共睹的。而現在，當我們有額外的資源時，也不吝於分享給我們在美洲、歐洲及非洲的友邦與其他正在受到疫情影響的國家。

According to our health professionals who used to work closely with various countries in Africa, a temporary hospital has been built by Taiwan in Eswatini at the moment, and some important medical supplies sent by Taiwan are finding their way to Africa as well.
根據我們曾在非洲駐點過的醫衛工作者指出，臺灣正在協助史瓦帝尼建立臨時醫院，也同時在安排許多醫療用品援助。

With all the aforementioned in mind, how can you, in a few sentences, attempt to smear Taiwan’s reputation with such irresponsible and false accusations?
而根據上述所有資訊，（譚德塞博士）您怎能用簡單幾句謬誤的指控，不負責任地污衊世界對臺灣的印象呢？

In the past two days, WHO hosted webinars in regards to how we, as individuals or as health professionals and officials, should confront the current info-demic. Ironically, just right after the webinar, Dr Tedros, as the DG of the WHO, was accusing Taiwan with misinformation.
在過去兩天當中，世衛舉辦了以「疫情假資訊」為題的線上研討會，提供個人、醫衛人士及官員一些面對疫情假資訊的建議。
然而，多麼諷刺的是，就在研討會剛結束的時候，世衛幹事長即帶頭用不實的資訊指控臺灣。

I firmly believe that health is a fundamental human right that should not be denied despite differences of any kind. Health for all, leave no one behind is also the core value that the WHO stands for. Please do not forget your dedication as a public health professional and the vows that you made when you ascended to the honorable position you are sitting at right now - health of people in the world comes first, not politics.
我一直相信，健康，是所有人皆擁有的基本人權。
全民健康，沒有人應被排除在外，也是世衛堅守的核心價值。
（譚德塞博士）請不要忘記您作為一個公衛專家的信念，以及您接任幹事長時所立下的誓言——「全球人民的健康當為第一位，而非政治。」

We are now facing the most challenging health crisis of our time. Taiwan cares about people’s health. We are willing to help, and we are helping now. Taiwan is a country that stands for progressive values, and we, as the Taiwanese people, are also known for our appreciation for diversity. We have never criticised you nor your actions based on your race, culture or skin colour.
全球現在正在面臨這個世代最嚴竣的健康危機，而臺灣不僅在乎所有人的健康，更願意幫忙、正在幫忙。
臺灣是一個相信進步價值的國家，臺灣人民，更是始終尊重多元、擁抱多元。我們從未因為基於您的種族、文化或膚色，而提出質疑。

I, on behalf of my beloved country and people, am now asking for an apology from you under the current circumstance.

現在，我與我熱愛的國家和臺灣人民，要求您針對4/8的不實指控，提出道歉！

Thank you for your time.
感謝。

Vivi Lin
2020.4.8

#StandWithTW
#WHO #COVID19 #Coronavirus
#DrTedros
#TaiwanHelps

*Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this video are those of the authors. 影片內容僅代表作者本身之觀點。*

Our Merch: https://standard.tv/kentobento
Our Patreon: ​https://patreon.com/kentobento

Nebula: https://watchnebula.com/kentobento
Twitter: https://twitter.com/kentobento2015
Business Inquiries: kentobento@standard.tv

Download Dashlane for free to manage all your passwords: https://dashlane.com/kentobento​
(Use the promo code "kentobento" to get 10% off Dashlane Premium.)

Other videos you may like:
The Bizarre South Korean Bank Heist: https://youtu.be/8JclG3gZLQI
The Mysterious Chinese Art Heists Across Europe: https://youtu.be/9LDVQYfeseo
This Is The Greatest Bank Heist in Japanese History: https://youtu.be/gbeN-2ErxBw
The $1,000,000,000 North Korean Bank Heist: https://youtu.be/Usu9z0feHug
How This Lake in Northwest Asia Got Deadlier Than Chernobyl: https://youtu.be/SQCfOjhguO0
How North Korea Held the Greatest Pro Wrestling Event in History: https://youtu.be/U_ZkqfSpbg4

Stock Media Footage:
Videoblocks: https://www.videoblocks.com

Music:
Epidemic Sound: http://epidemicsound.com
Ross Bugden: https://youtube.com/channel/UCQKGLOK2FqmVgVwYferltKQ
Brandon Maahs: http://brandonmaahs.com

Channel Description:
Animated documentary-style videos on extraordinary Asian events.

Credits:
Kento Bento — Researcher, writer, narrator, audio editor, video editor, motion graphics & art director
Charlie Rodriguez — Illustrator
Isambard Dexter — Research assistant
Nina Bento — Cheerleader

Video Title: This Is The Greatest Bank Heist in Chinese History

"Handan, China. October 10th, 2006. It was getting dark. The vault manager of the Agricultural Bank of China was on edge. He was afraid. He felt something wasn’t quite right. Yes there were two security guards patrolling the grounds, which made him feel safer, but as vault manager he needed to be sure himself. He checked the printer room, the conference room, there was no one there, no sign of trouble. Then he entered the vault… where everything was also fine - the money was there and the bank’s security system was down. In fact, everything was just as he planned..."

What is GT-R?

GT-R is a vehicle developed with a main objective of use by the circuit the skyline that continues from the C10 Hacosca type (Macartun). It is a car like the assumption of the win in the race though it is a passenger car base, a mission installing equipment and an engine different from other grades of the skyline, and the influences on other domestic production sports cars, etc.Therefore, there are a lot of madly devoted fans, and the engineer also has a special sticking to. The name of GT-R for that is assumed, and there is a model not permitted either, and it assumes the existence of GT-R to be the one of more special crown. ｢There are three famous alphabets worldwide. It is G, T, and R. I will promise here. GT-R revives without fail. ｣Carlos Ghosn COO (at that time) made remarks on "GT-R concept" ahead by opening about presentation at the press conference on the Tokyo Motor Show in 2001. I can ask this car for the posture of Nissan that offers it because it entrusted such a content to Gorn where only a thorough rationalization strategy is often taken up. This promise is sold, and the mass production type is announced by the 40th Tokyo Motor Show on October 24, 2007 and Carlos Ghosn will be sold accomplishment Nissan and GT-R on December 6, 2007. Especially, it is known, and not only the country but also the world is 13 in the reputation of R from active distinguished services very much in an overseas race that has infiltrated by calling Godzilla (Godzilla) as for the name though it is from R32 type. Therefore, GT-R of R32, R33, and R34 is introduced to foreign countries though the skyline is almost a car only for the domestic sale by exporter's hand. As for the reputation, R33GT-R was sold to the model end very high as regular export in Britain though 100 V-spec was a limitation to R34GT-R similarly in addition by 100 limitation.

This is to receive the thing that eminence in Europe goes up by participating as "NISMO GT-R LM" to demand of saying to Nissan Motor Co., "It wants you to sell it also in foreign countries" strong, and 24 hour in Le Mans endurance race. There is a user who says that there are value (scarcity) more than Ferrari and status, too and the satisfaction rating to a practical side is very high though only the high income group was able to buy 10.8 million yen when converting it into Japanese yen in Britain because of the tariff by the thing that does (The price of a new car of V-specII of a domestic specification is 5 million 748 thousand yen) , saying that "The family is taken though it is efficient as the sports running can be done". Britain..car..performance..technology..high..externals..Tokyo..taxi..criticize..this..writing..Britain..joke..rather..face..usual..passenger car..contents..sports car..concept..fresh..assuming that..accept..thing..turn inside out..expression.It was received with good feeling in "Cargai (car favor)" actually. Both of these 200 total are sold all on several days.

Additionally, the individual was exported to Germany, France, Switzerland, the United States, Hong Kong, and UAE, etc. (To our regret, putting the car that had not suited the standard in the United States according to state might become the violation of the law, and there was a case where the trader was restrained to the police authority, and had been imprisoned, too). Moreover, Michael Clm active with SUPER GT also buys two R34GT-R in Japan, and it transports it to Monaco.

A British specification : with a domestic specification though is especially the enormous discrepancy. Type..locale..regulations..according to..correspondence..security..strengthen..headlight..halogen..valve..make..security..standard..suit..change..speed limiter..Europe..self-imposed restraint..value..improve..scale..speed..meter..adoption..country..specification..spec..adopt..genuine leather..seat..equip..Britain..specification..this..skin..hand..work..put..one..Japan..lineup..provide..red..epidermal..selection..tentatively..Japan..limitation..put on the market.

The name of GT-R still was not revealed at this point, and the flow of GT-A and GT-B that had been put up was drawn to a hot model of the second generation skyline, and there was a rumor of becoming GT-C, too, when marketing it founder GT-R in the Hacosca age was though the reference was exhibited to the prototype of the type in the previous year's 1968 Tokyo Motor Show put on the market immediately before marketing.

There are already a lot of owners of GT-R who dislike excessively putting the hand from the perfection as the tuning car high while stocked. Moreover, because the emblem of GT-R is applied to a standard model and a lot of tunings shown like GT-R are done by transplanting the bumper, it is possible to visit the popularity of the style of GT-R. To catch it ..engine power to keep.. firmly, great Modefai is often added to the exterior an of course favorite ..core.. tuning.