關於 india economic times ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

只有郭台銘在準備這八大文件：
執行計劃書
藥品說明書
數量及計算依據
冷鏈及倉儲設備
供貨期程
原廠授權書
有效期限
國外上市證明或替代文件

地方政府著急人民的安危，而積極的為人民尋求疫苗接種的途徑，這種心情，全世界各國的地方首長一定都是一樣的，人民無論在哪一個國家，相信都可以慶幸的是：他們的政府，無論中央或地方，都傾全力在保護人民的健康與生命。
但是，地方政府或民間團體買疫苗，沒有中央政府參與，確實買得到疫苗嗎？我們的中央政府說的，希望大家循程序提出申請，是狠心的阻擋？還是無法避免的必要的對口？而如果地方政府宣稱已經買到疫苗，是事實嗎？和這兩篇報導中的德里市政府與旁遮普省政府比起來，台灣宣稱買得到疫苗的地方政府是如何突破國際各疫苗廠的拒絕？
政府被當作阻擋疫苗的政客，這是真的嗎？
這裡有兩個報導，有助於我們思索這個問題的答案：
1) Hindu Business Line的報導：
印度德里市長克里瓦爾(Arvind Kejriwal)指稱，數間大型疫苗製造廠商，包含BNT/輝瑞及莫德納均表示無法直接銷售疫苗給地方政府，只能跟中央政府接洽新冠肺炎疫苗。
德里市政府同時也希望印度中央政府能加速批准各大新冠肺炎疫苗進口。表明印度在疫苗的核准上市程序相較世界其他國家非常緩慢！
https://reurl.cc/Ak806Y

2）India Economic Times報導：印度Punjab旁遮普省也表示曾透過各種管道希望能直接向輝瑞及莫德納採購疫苗，但遭兩家公司拒絕。
旁遮普省收到莫德納回覆「依公司現行政策無法販賣疫苗給地方政府或任何其他私人機構，只能和各國中央政府交涉」。
https://reurl.cc/lRdDb6
印度的疫情非常嚴重，地方政府首長的壓力可以想像，他們在接洽各大疫苗製造廠商企圖購買疫苗後，很忠實的跟人民報告實情：疫苗廠不跟地方政府、民間團體交易。
而台灣，目前所有表達要捐贈的單位，據聞只有郭台銘先生的提議最具體，也沒有排除政府的角色，目前也還在努力，我們只有看到郭先生的基金會在配合政府，努力拼72小時內，備齊所需的八大文件，包括：

1、執行計劃書
2、藥品說明書
3、數量及計算依據
4、冷鏈及倉儲設備
5、供貨期程
6、原廠授權書
7、有效期限
8、國外上市證明或替代文件

所以，很多讓人民感覺到處爭取到疫苗的聲音，多是一個意向的表達，實際內涵為何，是虛？是實？政府都還沒有收到足夠處理的資料。
目前，真的沒有聽到哪一個單位說有在準備八大文件？！包括佛光會中華總會，仍然什麼內容都沒有，目前才開始和CDC進行了解中。
現在，事實非常清楚，政府沒有阻擾，郭台銘已經在進行，奈何，疫苗議題攻防激烈，政府從來沒有拒絕過，卻已經被誤解成為阻擋疫苗的「政客」了！
這部分，真的是個假像啊！

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”

Is a U.S.-China hot war imminent?｜Lee Yee

In July, Pompeo claimed the American policy towards China is harsher than the one towards the Soviet Union in the Cold War era. The approach has been shifted from “listening to its words and watching its deeds” to “ignoring its words and only watching its deeds”. Recent developments show that the U.S. is striding closer and closer to a complete de-linkage with China. The recall of the ambassador from China was just a prelude. What followed was the U.S. official interpretation that “one China policy” is not equivalent to “one China principle”, plus the emphasis that “the U.S. holds no specific standpoint towards the sovereignty of Taiwan”. Furthermore, during the visit of Krach, U.S. Under Secretary of State, Tsai Ing-wen stated that “Taiwan has the determination to take the critical step”. Adding fuel to this, Hsiao Bi Khim, Taiwan’s delegate at the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the U.S., introduced herself as the “Taiwan Ambassador to the U.S.” on Twitter. In view of all these, is the U.S. going to establish diplomatic relation with Taiwan? Will it turn out to be the “October surprise” before the U.S. presidential election? In response, China dispatched fighter jets to violate the airspace of Taiwan, and as “Global Times” put it, “this was not a gesture of warning, but an actual combat exercise of attacking Taiwan”. In return, Taiwan authority urged China “not to underestimate its armed forces' resolve in safeguarding Taiwan”. As tension keeps building up across the Strait, will the U.S. intervene and finally trigger a U.S.-China hot war?

For the last few months, while analyzing the situation, quite a few observers have drawn upon the “Thucydides trap” originated from an ancient Greek historian. According to this theory, when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as an international hegemony, there will be an unavoidable tendency towards war.

To be frank, these observers may have well overestimated the strength of China. Thanks to its huge population, China has become the second largest economic entity in the world. But we are now living in an era that national strength is rather defined by technological advancement. In reality, China is militarily inferior to Russia and technologically lagging far behind major western countries. To put it simply, China is yet to be capable of challenging the American dominance.

Back in the 1980s, in the heyday of its economic development, Japan has significantly outperformed the U.S. in the capital market, and some American scholars have come to the “Japan No.1” conclusion. Despite this, there was never a sign of military confrontation between U.S. and Japan. A decade later, the formation of the European Union posed new challenge to the American supremacy. But again, the two did not come anywhere close to a war. So why has the emergence of China, which in fact lacks the capabilities to overwhelm the U.S., aroused much anticipation of war?

Rudolph Rummel, an American professor of political studies, have made a thorough analysis on the correlation between wars and democracy in human history. After humans surviving a thousand years of darkness, it was not until the independence of the U.S. in 1776 that unveiled a democratic institution with public elections, separation of powers, multi-party system as well as freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly. After more than a hundred years, in 1900 there were only 13 democratic countries in the world. And after another decade, in 2015 the rose to 130, and dictatorial states without meaningful elections have become the minority.

According to Rummel’s statistics, there were 371 wars between 1816 and 2005. Among them, 205 were fought between two dictatorial countries and 166 between democratic and dictatorial ones. Interestingly, there had not been a single war between democratic countries. The conclusion is all too obvious: if there were only democratic states on earth, wars would not happen.

And here lies the fundamental reason why the “Thucydides Trap” has been more valid in the old days when dictatorial systems prevailed, but has failed to apply in contemporary cases between two democratic countries. And it also explains why the competitions between the U.S. and Japan or the EU have not led to any war, while the challenge from China will probably end up differently.

In a democratic system, to wage a war requires a consensus among the government, legislature, media and public opinion. It is rather a matter of the people’s collective will than the ruler’s subjective decision. Whereas within a dictatorial structure, no approval from the legislature is needed, media and public opinion are never respected and judicial challenge simply does not exist. A dictator or oligarch can just go to war at will.

From a dictator’s point of view, whether to enter a war or not is not subject to external circumstance, but the domestic status of his ruling. When a dictator’s position gets shaken by severe economic downturn and widespread public discontent, he will try to divert domestic dissatisfaction by means of foreign maneuvers. The dictator tends to single out those “non-conforming groups”, as so identified by the “little pink” Chinese patriots, and tries bullying them, as what the CCP is doing in India, Hong Kong and Inner Mongolia. The objective is to distract attention with extreme nationalism. More often than not, stirring up external instability has become a tactic to secure domestic stability of the dictator’s rule.

Perhaps a shrewd dictator will weigh up the strength of his counterpart before taking action. Nevertheless, the intrinsically defective system may hinder the dictator from understanding the reality and accessing different views. And personal intellectual and intelligent inadequacies may also breed unrealistic self-inflating belief. The resulted stupidity can make a tragedy more imminent than everyone may expect.

This is a message that I would like to share with the world.
A message from Taiwan.

Hi there, this is Vivi from Taiwan.
There’s something that I would like to share with you.

With more than 1.7 million confirmed cases and 100 thousand deaths around the world, the COVID19 pandemic outbreak has become the most challenging global health crisis of our time. This is an unprecedented time that has affected the lives of everyone in our global community, regardless of race, gender, culture, or skin colour.

At this defining moment in history, cooperation will bring upon the relief and clarity needed to triumph over a common threat facing humankind. In this fight, I, as a citizen of this global community, believe health is a fundamental human right that is inherent to all human beings. ‘Health For All, Leave No One Behind’ is a guiding principle of all health professionals, as well as a message that has resonated with us Taiwanese people through the toughest of times. In 2003, the SARS outbreak devastated my home country. Left isolated and marginalised by the WHO in the fight against SARS, we learned, through fearful uncertainty, how to tenaciously combat pandemics. But most importantly, the people of Taiwan experienced firsthand what it felt like to be left behind. Taiwan, despite just being miles off the coast of China, has effectively managed the spread of coronavirus in our country. And it is the belief that we should ‘leave no one behind’ that motivates us to play our role in the global community.

Taiwan can help, and Taiwan is helping.

In the past few weeks, the Taiwanese government has donated more than 10 million surgical masks to the United States, Europe, Southeast Asia, India, Central America and South America. Other medical supplies are also finding their way to all continents around the globe. Since the very first days of the outbreak, the Taiwanese government has devoted itself to fighting this pandemic. Through information transparency, quick response, early deployment and the effective use of big data, the functions of our society continue without interruption. To share our knowledge on COVID-19 with the world, we created virtual forums, participated by numerous countries, of our successful and internationally recognised public health policies. Our government and research centres have also teamed up with the Czech Republic, European Union and the United States in sharing tactics and technology and collaborating on the development of vaccines and rapid test kits. Finally, we have worked with different governments in analysing the economic, social and psychological impact of the epidemic and related isolation measures.

Taiwan cares, and Taiwan helps.

This virus can tear up the world, but it will not shake the foundations of humanity’s values. For a worldwide pandemic that does not discriminate based on borders and nationalities, it is crucial that we, in times of a crisis like this, stay stronger together.

Taiwan never forgets her friends from around the world.
We are part of this global team and we are in solidarity with the rest of the world.
Taiwan stands with you.


這是一個我想要傳遞給世界的訊息。
一則，來自臺灣的訊息。

嗨，今天過得好嗎？
我是來自臺灣的Vivi。讓我跟你分享一件事，好嗎？

COVID19爆發至今，已在全球造成超過一百七十萬人確診、十萬人犧牲。這次的疫情，是這個世代面臨最大的全球衛生危機。這是一場影響了全人類，不論種族、性別、文化、與膚色，我們都必須共同面對的，前所未有的挑戰。

在這個歷史性的浪尖上，並肩合作、共同抗疫，才能夠引領我們贏得這場對抗病毒的戰役。身為全球公民的一員，我始終相信「健康，是每一個人都享有的基本人權」。而「全民均健」，不只是每一個醫衛人員所堅守的價值，更是在這樣艱難的時刻中，臺灣人民付諸實行的信念。在2003年時，我們經歷了SARS的考驗，並學會了如何在前方情形未知、還被WHO排除在外的情況下，仍舊堅韌地戰勝傳染病。但最重要的是，臺灣人比誰都了解孤軍奮戰的心情。而在這次的疫情當中，臺灣即便緊鄰中國，依然有效地阻擋了疫情擴散。同時也正是「全民均健，不可遺落任何一個人」的信念，引領臺灣始終積極地在國際社會中，貢獻一己之力。

臺灣可以幫忙，我們也正在全力幫忙。

在過去幾週內，臺灣捐贈了超過一千萬個醫療口罩至美國、歐洲、東南亞、印度及中南美洲。同時，也有許多捐贈給各大洲的防疫醫療器材，正在運送與安排當中。自從疫情爆發的第一天起，我們的政府就全體動員，合力對抗傳染病。經由公開透明的疫情資訊、超前部署、快速溝通與反應、以及大數據運用等防疫策略，臺灣社會才得以繼續維持日常生活不受影響。而我們也開始舉辦線上會議，與許多國家分享我們的防疫經驗——臺灣的防疫成果，是國際有目共睹的。我們的政府與醫衛研究機構，也跟捷克、歐盟、美國合作，不僅分享防疫策略、技術，也開始共同研發疫苗與快篩。近期，我們也跟他國政府共同合作，研究此次疫情所帶來在經濟、社會與心理健康上的影響。

臺灣因為在乎，所以我們實際幫忙。

病毒或許可以分裂這個世界，但沒辦法撼動人類最根深蒂固堅守的價值。面對著這個跨越邊界、國籍的傳染病危機，這個世界必須攜手合作，共同強大。

臺灣從來沒有忘記我們全球的友邦與朋友。
我們是這個世界的一份子，也會持續跟全世界站在一起，抵禦病毒。
臺灣與你並肩。

#COVID19 #TWStandsWithU #TaiwanCanHelp #TaiwanIsHelping

—
影片製作 Video/ Vivi Lin
內容撰寫 Script/ Vivi Lin, Roy Cheng
相片版權 PC/ Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Taiwan)
（照片翻攝至外交部、Taiwan in the Netherlands、Taiwan in EU and Belgium、Taiwan in Holy See、Taiwan in Poland、AIT Facebook & Twitter，如有侵權敬請告知）
特別感謝 Special Thanks/ MOFA (Taiwan) and NEX Foundation

更多臺灣防疫成果國際分享，請見外交部專區https://bit.ly/mofacovid19

*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。*

Baru-baru ini Cik iena berkesempatan menghadiri Taiwan Excellence Esports Cup 2019 Grand Finale yang berlansung di Berjaya Times Square. Ini merupakan kali ke dua Cik iena ke Esports Tournament. Jika sebelum ini Cik iena ke Taiwan Excellence Esports Cup 2019 10th and Final Qualifier Tournament di Battle Arena Malaysia. Kali ini Cik iena ke Grand Finale pula.

Sebelum Cik iena berkongsi lebih lagi mengenai pengalaman Cik iena di Taiwan Excellence Esports Cup 2019 Grand Finale di Berjaya Times Square . Cik Iena kongsikan terlebih dahulu mengenai Esports dan Taiwan Excellence Esports Cup.


Apa itu eSports


Sukan elektronik (e-sukan) atau lebih dikenali sebagai E-Sport adalah sejenis sukan yang menggunakan elektronik-elektronik yang terdapat di dalam kehidupan seharian seperti Dota 2, Counter Strike, League of Legends dan banyak lagi.


e-Sukan merupakan sebuah industri baru bukan sahaja kepada pembangunan permainan video tetapi ianya merupakan industri dan sumber ekonomi baru kepada individu yang meminati permainan video secara positif.

Dalam permainan e-Sukan para pemain selalunya akan dibayar apabila bermain permainan video tersebut. Sukan elektronik sebenarnya telah mendapat tempat dihati rakyat Malaysia dari hari ke hari serta sokongan dari pelbagai pihak swasta dan kerajaan.


eSports sudah menjadi salah satu sukan yang terbesar dan paling popular di seluruh dunia secara beransur-ansur. Di Malaysia, bilangan peminat dan penggemar eSports sentiasa bertambah pada kadar yang sangat memeranjatkan.



Mengenai Taiwan Excellence?


Taiwan Excellence merupakan sebuah badan kerajaan yang ditubuhkan hasil kerjasama antara Taiwan External Trade Development Council (TAITRA) dan Taiwan Minitsry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) yang bertujuan untuk mengiktiraf produk-produk inovatif keluaran Taiwan ke seluruh dunia.

Seperti yang anda sedia maklum produk-produk Taiwan sangat tidak asing di negara kita di mana kebanyakkan produk inovatif Taiwan memberi memberi impak nilai terbaik. Ini kerana produk-produk Taiwan yang dieksport ke luar negara telah melalui proses yang amat tinggi dan telah diiktiraf dari sudut R&D, reka bentuk, kualiti dan juga pemasaran.

Taiwan Excellence Esports Cup 2019 Grand Finale di Berjaya Times Square

Berikutan kejayaan kejohanan Taiwan Excellence eSports Cup yang dilancarkan pada bulan April tyang lalu, kejohanan ini akhirnya telah tiba di puncak kemahsyuran, pusingan Grand Finale. Sepanjang perjalanan kejohanan ini, Taiwan Excellence Esports Cup telah merangkumi lebih 10 pertandingan LAN dan online yang dianjurkan di dalam negara, menyaksikan 283 pasukan dan 1,415 peserta bersaing antara satu sama lain untuk kelayakan ke pusingan seterusnya yang direbuti ramai.


Kejohanan selama tiga hari ini akan menyaksikan atlet-atlet e-sukan terbaik Malaysia untuk bertarung dalam 3 kategori gaming utama yang berikut, CS: GO, DotA 2 dan League of Legends. Juara bagi setiap kategori akan memenangi RM10,000 masing-masing dan pasukan yang menjuarai kategori CS: GO akan menerima tiket keemasan ke Taiwan untuk bertempur dengan empat negara-negara lain yang iaituTaiwan, Thailand, Filipina dan India. Pemenang diantara 4 negara ini akan menerima hadiah utama tambahan sebanyak US$ 2,000.

Sejak permulaan kejohanan ini, Perbadanan Ekonomi Digital Malaysia (MDEC) telah menyuarakan sokongannya terhadap kejohanan ini kerana ianya merupakan satu peluang yang baik untuk belia kita pada zaman ini untuk menyerlahkan bakat-bakat mereka menerusi platform #HealthyGaming.


Dengan semangat yang tinggi, wakil dari Pejabat Ekonomi dan Kebudayaan Taipei di Malaysia, Anne Hung berkata,


“Apabila kami memulakan (kejohanan) tahun ini, kami memang berkeyakinan dapat membawa dan menyampaikan mesej kami kepada peminat-peminat esports dan penggemar-penggemar teknologi di Malaysia. Kejohanan ini merupakan cara kami mempamerkan hasil-hasil inovasi Taiwan yang terbaik melalui platform yang menarik dan interaktif.”

Kejohanan ini juga telah mendapat sokongan dari jenama-jenama Taiwan termasuk Aorus, Aero, Coolermaster, InWin, MSI, Predator, Republik Pelayar (ROG), TeamGroup, Thermaltake, Transcend, XPG, ZADAK, dan Zowie. Penglibatan mereka telah memberikan peluang kepada rakyat Malaysia untuk mengalami pengalaman tahap tertinggi e-sukan melalui kejohanan ini.

Orang ramai dialu-alukan untuk menyertai acara-acara gaming sampingan seperti Tekken 7, Super Smash Bros, PES 2019, dan Mobile Legends: Bang Bang. Pemenang acara-acara ini akan pulang ke rumah dengan hadiah wang tunai sebanyak RM9,000 di saku mereka. Tambahan lagi, terdapat juga beberapa aktiviti yang menyeronokkan seperti mini DotA 2, pertandingan pemasangan komponen-komponen esport, pelelangan produk-produk esport pada harga eksklusif yang mampu menaikkan taraf kelengkapan gaming gamers, serta cabutan bertuah dan hadiah-hadiah percuma untuk semua peserta!


http://www.ienaeliena.com/2019/10/taiwan-excellence-esports-cup-2019-grand-finale.html