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

I am excited to share this video! Do you start speaking a new language early, or do you wait more? Are language challenges bad for mental health? Where do you begin learning a new language? Mark from Language Come Up and I had a lovely chat.

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”

AI 如何為公司創造更多價值？專家：2 個缺陷，要先由人類來修補

2021/05/13
採訪‧撰文
盧廷羲
張凱崴

美國人工智慧國家安全委員會（NSCAI）今年 4 月建議，國防部每年應至少分配 3.4% 的預算投入科技領域，並提撥 80 億美元研發 AI。企業方面，微軟（Microsoft）4 月宣布，將以 197 億美元收購語音辨識開發商紐安斯通訊（Nuance Communications）；後者是雲端與 AI 軟體的先驅。

從企業到國家，都愈來愈重視人工智慧，知道要想辦法運用 AI 創造更好的生活。不過，目前 AI 發展到底處於什麼階段？我們又該如何應用？

美國加州大學洛杉磯分校（UCLA）電腦科學系助理教授張凱崴形容，目前人工智慧技術已經可以幫助人類完成很多事，像是疫情來襲，電腦可以從大數據中篩選條件，自動搜尋、判讀潛在病例，幫助醫生大幅減少檢查時間，但 AI 也並非萬能，要先認知它的局限。他研究如何讓 AI 更符合人性，獲得 2021 年的史隆研究獎（Sloan Research Fellowships）。

AI 局限1. 資料寬廣度不足時，就會複製人類偏見

張凱崴認為，電腦在學習的時候，是依賴「彙整數據資料」來判斷，並沒有真正思考，如果資料來源太狹隘、不夠多元，資料寬廣度不足，電腦判斷就會出現偏差，「你跟電腦講清楚 input（輸入）、output（輸出），提供足夠的數據資料，它可以對應、學得很好，但還有很多面向 AI 做不到。」

舉例來說，亞馬遜（Amazon）2014 年推出智慧音箱（Amazon Echo），使用者口頭下指令給語音助理 Alexa 就能放音樂、查資訊。然而，有些人口音較罕見，或是用字較特殊，智慧音箱的資料庫沒有「不同口音」「不同用詞」的檔案，就可能失靈，這是當前 AI 的其中一大問題。

張凱崴進一步解釋，AI 另一項挑戰是，它無法清楚分辨「不曾出現」與「不能出現」（無法出現）之間的區別，只是從資料統計出要學的東西，無法像人類一樣進行邏輯思辨。

AI 的運作方式，第一步是輸入資料，第二步是分析，但這過程容易出現偏見。例如電腦在理解「總統」這個字，會去看四周有什麼字詞，來學習總統這個詞，由於許多總統都是男性，電腦就會「覺得」總統是男性。

這也是為什麼，如果讓 AI 學習，在它的認知裡，女性「不可能」當美國總統（因為沒有資料紀錄）。「你可以跟人類說，任何職業、性別都是平等的，但對電腦來講，這很困難，」張凱崴說明，一旦資料的寬廣度受限，電腦就容易產生偏見。

就像在自然語言處理（Natural Language Processing，讓電腦把輸入的語言變成有意義的符號）領域，張凱崴說明，AI需要知道代名詞指的是「哪個名詞」，才能運算下去。但如果資料受限，使用男性的「他」，電腦可能判斷這個代名詞是指總統、總理、執行長；但換成女性的「她」，由於數據不足，電腦就會混亂，出現系統性誤差。

他再舉一例，美國人工智慧研究組織 OpenAI 提出「生成式預先訓練」系統（GPT，Generative Pre-training），推出到 GPT3 版本，屬於書寫類 AI，電腦能夠揣測人們說完上一句話，下一句可能會講的句子，自動完成後半段。

好比有人上一句寫下「我正在和教授聊天」，系統可能推導出「我們在研究室討論學術問題」，因為電腦藉由蒐集來的語料資料中判讀出「教授」和「學術」具高度相關。但研究也顯示，GPT2（前一代版本）系統也從資料中學習到許多偏見，像是如果句子前半談論白人男性，系統傾向產生正面評價；如果句子前半是黑人女性，系統竟會產生負面句子。對企業來說，許多組織接觸 AI，想讓它們取代部分工作，首先需要留意資料的廣度、多元性，才能減少電腦犯錯的機會。

AI 局限2. 即便條件相同，也無法每次都做出正確判斷

「其實，現在的 AI 就像一台原型飛機，還缺乏穩定性。」張凱崴說，現行的 AI 就好比萊特兄弟（Wright brothers）剛發明飛機，看似可以做很多有趣的事，但「可以飛」跟「飛得很好」，有一大段落差。

紐西蘭的簽證系統曾鬧出笑話。人們上傳簽證照片，AI 掃描後，確認是不是本人，但當時系統沒有估算到某些亞洲人眼睛比較小，一名亞裔男子被判定「沒有張開眼睛」，因此照片無效。

張凱崴說，在這個例子中，凸顯出 AI 的穩定性不足，「系統沒有考慮到不同人種的差異，很死板地認為你眼睛沒張開。」所謂的缺乏穩定性，指的是 AI 沒辦法在相同條件下，每次都做出正確決策，這也是使用 AI 時，須留意的第二個挑戰。

他再舉例，許多模型可以準確分析，一則影評對電影的評價是正面或負面。然而研究顯示，有時只要將影評中一些字換成同義詞，例如把電影（movie）換成影片（film），或改寫句子，即使意思並未改變，系統卻把原本判斷為正面的影評標註成負面。這顯示AI系統還未真正了解語言的含義。

在設計這些程式時，人們必須注意到 AI 可能有局限，設定的資料範圍要更完整，考慮這些因素，就能減少偏見、落差，進而加強穩定性。

餵指令給 AI 要多元化，嘗試「換句話說」、刻意混淆

經理人雖然不一定具備 AI 方面的專業知識，但只要掌握觀念，再透過 AI 領域專才協助，也能優化系統。張凱崴指出，最直接的方法是，設計 AI 模型時，要把來源群組不同的資料分門別類測試，在測試階段讓群體多元化，並確保不同特色的使用者，用起來都沒有問題。

舉例來說，一套 A 系統擁有來自各地的使用者，如果設計者是台北人，設計系統的思維容易以台北生活為主，很可能因為當地習慣不同，導致花蓮使用者操作不順。

另一個方法，則是用不同的「語意」，去測試 AI 有沒有徹底學會一個概念。例如，有一套餐廳評鑑的 AI 系統，只要蒐集、整理使用者意見，就能判斷每個顧客對於餐廳的評比是高分或低分。那麼要如何確認這套系統的穩定性？張凱崴建議，可以利用「抽換詞面」的方法。

比如，把詞彙換成同義字，再看 AI 是否能運算出相同結果，「你可能會發現，原本評比結果是食物很美味，但如果美味換成比較困難的詞，AI 就會分不出這則評比是好是壞。」因此在訓練模型時，可以將詞彙隨機抽換成同義詞，增加 AI 的詞彙量。

第三種方式更進階：改變句型、重寫句子。張凱崴指出，同樣一句話，如果換成不同說法，電腦可能判讀錯誤，將「因為發生 A 事件，所以導致 B 事件」，改寫成「B 事件發生了，是因為 A 事件的緣故」，明明兩句話意思一樣，但 AI 很可能因為穩定性不足，搞混兩者的差別。如果要鞏固 AI 的穩定性，可以使用自動改寫的方式，增加資料的多樣性。

張凱崴表示，經過這些測試，讓 AI 接受更多元化的訓練，得到更廣的學習範圍，往後碰到同義詞、相似資訊，才能有效判讀。

張凱崴總結，AI 還在快速發展，或許可以創造更多工作機會、新的職位，但現行階段，它只是輔助角色。AI 並非魔術盒子，使用它就一定有更好結果，人們還是要保持高度耐心，先認識它的缺陷，才能在技術更迭下，發揮出最好的結果。

張凱崴

台灣大學資訊工程系碩士、美國伊利諾大學（UIUC）電腦科學博士。美國加州大學洛杉磯分校（UCLA）電腦科學系助理教授，研究領域包括人工智慧、機器學習、自然語言處理。2021 年獲得史隆研究獎（Sloan Research Fellowship），研究團隊開發的運算方法，使人類語言處理的程序更有效率、更多元，同時兼具公平性。

附圖：優化AI系統的3方法

資料來源：https://www.managertoday.com.tw/articles/view/62902?fbclid=IwAR2jI1bhg1anqct0AZZR_3LKKJqIsvG0wz2whSN8iniROZApHt-_qpD7dis

?【成人英語再起步】網上課程 ► http://bit.ly/2We1n2Q
YouTube 觀眾十二月特備優惠：購買【成人英語再起步網上課程】，用信用卡結賬時，可用優惠碼「YOUTUBEDEC20」，以 $1,299 優惠價購買第一期（原價 $1,499）；更可以以 $2,499 優惠價購買第一期+第二期！

? Patreon 月費學習計劃 ► https://bit.ly/3fZcjID

0:00 簡介
1:17 Tip 1: 不斷精進你對文法和讀音的認識
3:54 Tip 2: 和不同老師學習，因為每個老師的強項有不同，你也會得到不同啟發
5:45 Tip 3: 把英語學習融入生活中
8:29 Tip 4: 把學英文變成一種 lifestyle
8:48 4a: 看電影
9:33 4b: 聽英語音樂
9:55 4c: 用英語追星
12:21 4d: 不要只集中 input（輸入），忽略 output（輸出）
13:56 Tip 5: 學英文不是純粹翻譯
15:43 Bonus tip: 避免過份依賴字典
16:35 課程優惠
17:02 Instagram時事英語
17:36 下載懶人包


? 訂閱電郵通訊，收取學習資源、心得和課程最新消息 ► http://bit.ly/fla-nl

? 收聽 Learning English with Tiffany Podcast
► https://apple.co/2OwMPpK (Apple Podcasts) / https://spoti.fi/3g2KChF (Spotify) / https://bit.ly/3j0uSyd (Google Podcasts)

▶️ SUBSCRIBE 訂閱 ► http://bit.ly/flayt-sub
記住要按訂閱按鈕旁邊的小鈴鐺，那麼我們每次推出新片，你就會收到通知了！
It would mean the world to me if you could hit that bell ? beside the SUBSCRIBE button because that way, you get notified EVERY SINGLE TIME a new video goes live.

?我的相機和其它拍攝器材 ► https://kit.co/finnieslanguagearts/canon-800d-rebel-t7i-youtube-kit

✏️ 歡迎提供字幕 :) ► https://www.youtube.com/timedtext_cs_panel?tab=2&c=UCHkPJ7O9LLjEntwbsgn5TOg

??英文 channel ► http://bit.ly/tiffanysuen-youtube

?芬尼創業日記 channel ► http://bit.ly/fmkt-yt

? MeWe 學英文群組 ► https://bit.ly/fla-mewe-group

▍WATCH MORE 收看更多:

名人英語 ► http://bit.ly/2EUc8QO

時事英語 ► http://bit.ly/2RqrMok

文法懶人包 ► http://bit.ly/2UPUzI4

品牌名學英語 ► http://bit.ly/2qd3mUq

語文知識 ► http://bit.ly/2GzuW8b

今天只學一個字 ► http://bit.ly/2DRQPgE

Word Pairs 怎樣分 ► http://bit.ly/2hS1MCF


▍FOLLOW ME:

Instagram ► http://bit.ly/fla-ig
Facebook ► http://bit.ly/fla-fb
MeWe ► https://bit.ly/fla-mewe
Blog ► http://bit.ly/fla-medium
Twitter ► http://bit.ly/fla-twitter
Telegram ► https://bit.ly/fla-tg
Pinterest ► http://bit.ly/fla-pinterest


Free stuff!!! :)
► Use my iHerb Discount Code: ASC7218
► Sign up at AirBnb and get HKD$290 in travel credit: https://www.airbnb.com/c/tiffanys213
► Get a FREE first Uber ride (up to HK$50): https://www.uber.com/invite/tiffanys2213ue
► Get TWO months of free SkillShare premium: https://skl.sh/2IIHhr8
► Get HKD$100 of credit to spend across your next 4 orders at Deliveroo: https://roo.it/tiffanyccs
► Get HKD$100 off your order at NOSH: TIFH437

Someone asked me a question which prompted me to make this video. Is there a right or wrong way to learn a language? That's up for debate - but here are my thoughts, with a special focus on comprehensible input. I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments!

Vid I made about MINDSETS you need for learning a language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juo8qIMTTOc

Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
00:29 Language learning methods
01:04 Comprehensible input
01:53 Are cartoons dumb?
03:11 Full immersion
04:23 I don't review notes
04:43 MINDSET
06:16 Next steps




#polyglot #languagelearning

———
?SOCIALS

Insta → https://www.instagram.com/lindiebotes/
Website & resources → http://lindiebotes.com/
Twitter → https://twitter.com/lindiebee
FB → https://www.facebook.com/lindiebotesvideos/
Ko-fi → https://ko-fi.com/lindiebotes#


✨GOODIES

$10 free italki credits (after first lesson) → https://go.italki.com/LindieBotes
10% off Du Chinese (my favorite app!) enter LINDIE10 at checkout → https://www.duchinese.net/
All discounts → http://lindiebotes.com/discounts
All language resources → https://lindiebotes.com/language-resources/
Merch → https://society6.com/lindiebotes


?ABOUT

Welcome to my channel! My name is Lindie and I share my love for languages through my polyglot progress and language learning tips here. South African by birth, I spent most of my life in France, Pakistan, the UAE and Japan. Now I work as a UI/UX designer in Singapore. I'm a Christian and strive to shine God’s light in all I do. May this channel inspire you to reach your language goals!

New here? Best videos → https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRCVN94KILKXGx45JKaVBSpPkrpXhrhRe
FAQ → https://lindiebotes.com/faq/


?BOOKS I USE

Practical Chinese Grammar → https://geni.us/PracticalChineseGram
Japanese for Busy People on Amazon → https://geni.us/JapaneseForBusy1
Advanced Japanese for Busy People → https://geni.us/JapaneseForBusy3
Korean Grammar in Use Intermediate → https://geni.us/KoreanGrammarUse
Korean TOPIK exam prep → https://geni.us/TOPIK2prep
Short Stories in Spanish → https://geni.us/spanishshortstories


?EQUIPMENT

Camera → https://geni.us/CanonPowerShotG7
Mic → https://geni.us/RodeSmartLavMicr
Tripod → https://geni.us/ManfrottoTravel

———
Some links are affiliate links, and a percentage goes towards supporting my channel.
Collabs & partnerships: hello@lindiebotes.com

★★日本にいながら英語をいくらでも練習（アウトプット）できる新サービスを始めます！！その詳細は動画の最後にあるので是非最後まで見てください★★
English is below!!

【この動画にコメントを投稿する方法】
この動画のコメントはBilingual Babyコミュニティーのタブにてお願いします⇩⇩⇩⇩
http://bit.ly/2kGypIL

今日の動画に出ている英語は事前にTwitterでもクイズ形式でアップしているので、英語をもっと勉強したい方は、是非Twitterもフォローをお願いします！
https://twitter.com/bilingualbaby01

**バイリンガルベイビーの動画を英語の勉強として使いたい方のために、動画を使って上達できる英語勉強法の詳細な方法は下記に記載されているのでご確認ください！


【今日の動画】
大変お待たせしました!!! バイリンガルベイビーのチャンネルで私（アメリカ人の妻）が最も聞かれる質問は「どうやって日本語を覚えたか」なので、今日は、私の日本語の勉強法の動画をアップします！実は、私もバイリンガル（スペイン語と英語）で育ったので、今日ご紹介する勉強法はその経験に基づいた勉強法です。日本人も、今からでも、真似できるメソッドなので、英語を勉強されている方も、超短期間で上達できる英語勉強法として使って頂ければ嬉しいです。
In today’s video I’ll be introducing how I learned Japanese! The story of how I learned Japanese actually is actually tied to the story of how I learned Spanish as a bilingual child. I grew up speaking both English and Spanish at home, so I used a lot of that insight in learning Japanese as an adult. How I learned Spanish is actually a totally different matter, but as far as my Japanese language study is concerned (the input aspect), I learned Japanese at Arizona State University (ASU). I strongly recommend the Japanese language program at ASU!!


【今日の英語】
①”a pretty penny”
a pretty pennyは英語のイディオムです。よく使われる英語ですし、意味は「その金額は若干高い」だけなのですが、「It’s a little expensive」というよりもちょっと可愛い言い方になるので、言ってみればいかがですか？

英語での例文
・It costs a pretty penny.
これはちょっと高いね。

・These kinds of services cost a pretty penny.
こういったサービスはやっぱりちょっと高いね。

②cliffhanger
Cliffhangerという英単語は、日常会話というよりも、映画・ドラマ・小説によく使う言葉です。海外ドラマは特にCliffhangerが多いですね。つまり、あるドラマの話の最後にすごい展開があり、「次はどうなるの？？」とか「もう来週の話を待てない！！！」という終わり方はまさしくCliffhangerです。実はビジネスでも使える英単語です。例えば、

We want to leave them wanting more so why don’t we end the presentation with a little cliffhanger. That way, they can call us up after the presentation for a follow-up meeting.
プレゼンの後日にも（得意先から？とか）アポをとりたいので、プレゼンの最後にちょっとしたCliffhanger（続きが気になる終わり方）を入れておこう。Cliffhangerでプレゼンを終わらせると後日に絶対に電話がかかってくる（アポがとれる）でしょう。

Good luck with your English BB Family!!


《この動画を英語の勉強にどうやって使う？》
「聞き流し英語」的な感じでこの動画を是非見てください。私達のチャンネルで、実際にネイティブが使っている英語の文法も使っていますし、変にスピードも落としていませんので、このスピードにある程度慣れてたら、海外に行ったらばっちりなはずです！

ですので、是非こちらの動画で英語のリスニングの勉強していただければと思います！

なお、英語のリスニング力アップのためのこの動画のベストな活用方法があります。４ステップ法
①まず、動画を最初見る時に、日本語の字幕を見ながら楽しく動画を最初から最後まで見る。このステップは「英語を勉強する」ステップではなく、単純に「動画の内容」と「ストーリーの展開」を覚えるステップです。つまり、英語・日本語関係なく、この動画で何が起きているかを理解することがステップ１です。ここであまり英語の勉強を気にしなくてもいいです。

②もう一度動画を見るけど、今度は、各フレーズ（気になるフレーズ）を１つ１つ丁寧に聞いて、英語と日本語の字幕（両方とも）一緒に読んで、英語のフレーズ（英語の表現）や言い方を意識する。一時停止したり、巻き戻したりすると理解しにくい英語の表現を理解できるかもしれません。信じがたいですが、私達の動画に本当に「知っておくべき英語」が厳選されています。なのでどのフレーズを学んでも損ではありません。「生きた英会話」と思っていただければと思います。

③もう一度動画を見る。今後は、日本語の字幕を絶対に見ないで動画を見る。理解できない場合は、絶対に英語の字幕だけを見る。なので、このステップは、「海外に留学したばかりの人になった気分」。つまり、日本語に頼らないステップ。

④英語の字幕と日本語の字幕、どれも全く読まないでで最初から最後まで動画をもう一度見る。 絶対に、自分の理解度に驚くはずです。１００％は理解できないかもしれないが、聞く前と比較すると本当にビビるぐらい英語力が伸びる。「ええ？これだけで英語力が上がるの？」と思われる方が多いと思うけど、4回も同じ箇所を見ているので、それだけで思っている以上に英語が身についている（同じ歌を４回聞けばなんとなく歌えると一緒）。留学する時に、こういう風にみんな学ぶ。因みに幼児も同じように言語を学ぶ。

この４つのステップを踏んだ後に、もしまだ動画の内容が完璧に理解できないということであれば、リスニング聞き取れなかった箇所だけに戻り、更に２—３回を聞くことがお勧めです。

最後ですが、もし、使っている英語について何か質問があればいつでもコメントで聞いてくださいね。他の視聴者のためにもなるし遠慮なく聞いちゃってください。

Good luck!!!


**Follow us**
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bilingualbaby/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/bilingualbaby01
Blog: https://ameblo.jp/bilingualbaby

#トリリンガル #英語 #英語上達