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

【是按怎台澎應該挕捒中(華民)國外衫？】
顯然朱先生對「法理建國」ê 主張是「一知半解」
就親像伊對別的議題 ê 認知仝款
看一个影就會當家己生一部電影

中國欲侵略啥人從來嘛無需要「理由」
毋過伊若欲 #使用武力（ex.鎮壓、維穩）
就一定 ài 有「正當性」

就親像伊對待 #香港、#圖博、#東突厥斯坦 仝款

是按怎中國會當用「#處理內部事務」要求其他國家袂得插手
就是因為香港、圖博、東突厥斯坦 ê 主權
真正是 100% 屬於中國

頭前講--ê 彼个「正當性」欲對佗位來？
就是對伊主張 ê 依據來

法理派是按怎一直欲強調台澎「ài 脫離中(華民)國」？
就是因為PROChina對台澎 ê 主張
完全是對ROChina ê 主張繼承來--ê

自1949年開始
中(華人民共和)國毋但沓沓仔開始繼承中(華民)國的中國代表權
（1972年發表上海公報彼年嘛是ROChina去予 #2758號決議 踢出UN彼冬）
嘛繼承中(華民)國宣稱「台澎是中(華民)國的領土」、「#反對台灣獨立」ê 主張
（甚至閣欺騙台灣人「#台灣光復」、「#台灣是一个主權獨立國家、國號叫中(華民)國」）

阮法理派堅持強調「#台澎主權未定」
就是為著 ài 挕捒兩个中國政府 ê 共同主張
予台澎會當真真正正建立屬於台灣人 ê 國家

莫閣受去予兩个中國政府 ê 內戰爭議帶衰
嘛莫閣共中(華民)國 ê 十字架揹佇家己 ê渾軀
甘願繼續做全世界上大 ê 中國城

#中華民國就是中國

#咱ài法理台灣國
#無ài自由中國島

#終止代管_自決建國

｛追申｝

美方對上海公報 ê 立場是"#acknowledge"（認知）

The US side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.

美國對中美三个公報 ê 立場是〈#六項保證〉：

1. #美國未同意對台軍售設定期限﹔(We did not agree to set a date certain for ending arms sales to Taiwan)

2. #美國並不尋求為台灣與中華人民共和國之間作調停﹔(We see no mediation role for the United States between Taiwan and the PRC)

3. #美國也不會施加壓力要求台灣與中華人民共和國談判﹔(Nor will we attempt to exert pressure on Taiwan to enter into negotiations with the PRC)

4. #美國對台灣主權的長期立場沒有改變﹔(There has been no change in our longstanding position on the issue of sovereignty over Taiwan)

5. #美國並無計劃修改臺灣關係法﹔及 (We have no plans to seek revisions to the Taiwan Relations Act; and)

6. #八一七公報的內容並不表示美國對台軍售之前會徵詢北京意見。(the August 17 Communiqué, should not be read to imply that we have agreed to engage in prior consultations with Beijing on arms sales to Taiwan)

7月1日，在2021下半年的第一天，我們很高興分享獨立出版計劃的大人睡前故事書ztorybook @ztorybook.official 終於正式推出了。從線上走到線下，的確不容易，但在這瘋狂的世界，一切都不容易吧。大概只有放棄最容易，但我們不想放棄，所以就直接走下去好了。感謝一早訂購了支持我們的讀者，抱歉讓你們久等了。每一個季節問一個問題，以十二個故事十二件畫作回應。Ztorybook issue 01，這雙語大人睡前故事書現可於我們網店直接購買了，數量有限，也會即將公佈實體零售點，希望你能收藏這睡前故事書: https://bit.ly/3dxIpw0

On July 1st, 2021, the first day in the second half of 2021, we are happy to announce that ztorybook is officially launched. In this crazy world, it’s definitely not easy to start a publication project, everything is not easy now anyway though. Giving up probably is the easiest option, however, it’s never our choice. Therefore, let us just rock the world with this crazy bilingual publication project. Thanks so much for all people pre-ordered and wait us for very long time. Ztorybook Issue01 is now available at online shop, we will also update our stockists soon. One question every issue with twelve original stories and twelve creative artworks. Please stay tuned with us! https://bit.ly/3dxIpw0

Follow @ztorybook.official

Chief Editor & Art Director : Alice Lee @a_slow_soul
Managing Editor : Chely Chong
Creator director : William Tsao
Creative Partner : @thirdPARAGRAPH
Senior Editor : WongYue Hang @wongyuehang2047
Editor : Shiron Yim @dear.shiron
Printing : Colham Printing Co. @colham_printing_

Cover Illustration:
Javier Calleja @javicalleja
Ruo Hsin Wu @ruohsinwu

Creators:
Ruo Hsin Wu @ruohsinwu
Alice Lee@a_slow_soul
Javier Calleja @javicalleja
Matt Chung @mattchung
Fish Lieu @fish331
Pazu Chan @pazu_k
Siu Hak @diuhak
Pris Pong @pris_pong
Onki Lau onki_lau
CaxtonCax @caxtoncax
Saville Chan @savillechan
Shinji Tsuchimochi @shinji_tsuchimochi
Louis Miha @mihawriting
Ip Lai @ip.psd
Jan Leung @goodnightcode
Yip Wong @yyywt
Chet Lam @chetlam
Wenjiachi @wenjiachi
Yoyo Sham @thisisyoyosham
Threefire @threefirennn
Lamb Yu @lambiseverywhere
Stephanie Teng @stephinitely.tengy
Sonia Wong

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”

?FOLLOW US?
Sue's IG: https://www.instagram.com/cheongsueann
Jo's IG: https://www.instagram.com/joannwithadash

Hey guys,
It seems like it took us forever to edit this vlog. But we hope we are not too late~ First, we would like to thank you guys for all the bday wishes. You guys made our day even more special and warmer ?? We hope that we can continue to celebrate more bdays with you guys ???

We realised we only have 5000-word limitation here so we couldn't answer everyone. Sorry guys~ We'll probably answer them in our other vlogs.

Lots of love,
Jo & Sue

?IG QUESTIONS?
? What kind of app you use to edit your insta stories?
Sue: Inshot app. Cinema 02 filter + grains OR I use SNOW app
Jo: VSCO. M5 filter, M5 +2.8, Exposure +0.4, Contrast +0.5, Sharpen +4.1, White Balance : Temperature -0.9, Tint +1.2, Vignette +8.0, Grain +4.0

? How to you manage alone time?
We both have our own routine & we respect each other space. We actually spend most of our time alone~ Just in the vlog it seems like we are together 24/7

? If all expenses paid and no pain at all, what kind of plastic surgery would you girls do?
Love this question! We do get sponsorship offer for plastic surgery and we have kinda high tolerance for pain but we still rejected the offer =) We don’t think we would change a thing~ It’s not that we are happy with everything that we’re born with just that we think we rather learn to love what we are given. That being said, we are not against plastic surgery either.

? With your current income, do you guys be able to make a living on your own?
We survived. LOL~ It’s not a lot but we love what we do and we’ll continue to work hard.

? What happens if you are over 35 and have not married yet?
Good question~ We don’t think it should be an issue. Married or not, it won't change a thing =)

? Is there any tips or book recommended to start reading?
We all have different book preferences. When people say they are not a reader we always think that they have not found the right book. It’s not you, it’s the book LOL So keep searching and keep reading. Don’t feel bad to leave a book if you don’t like it~

? What if one day you two fall in love with the same guy?
It’s not going to happen~ We both have different taste in guys

? If you were to focus on one thing you can improve on, what would it be?
Sue: I would like to improve my sleeping habit. I need to sleep early.
Jo: For work, I want to improve my Photoshop skill. For personal, I want to overcome my fear of crowds.

? What is something which gives you happiness recently?
Jo: Baking cakes & learning crochet
Sue: Exercising & Baking breads

? Places / Country you guys want to travel when C19 ends or safe to travel again?
Jo: Korea
Sue: Taiwan~ Since we’re learning Mandarin, I think Taiwan is the great to practice my Mandarin. Plus, I like Taiwan.

? What’s your preference in guys?
Jo: I like hardworking guys. And also someone who knows how to enjoy life alone and with people too.
Sue: I like animated guys… I’ll leave it as that. LOL

? What made you start your own business? How to solve it when no customer buy?
We started our first business as a side thing. We just love clothings and we thought selling clothing would be fun. When we closed our clothing business down, opening another business seems like a familiar thing to do~
& how to get more customers? You can pay for ads. Get influencers to promote your business. Get family and friends to spread the news.

? Do you guys inspire each other? Who inspire who the most?
We both have different style so we get inspirations from outside sources ( like on Pinterest, YouTube or Instagram)

? How tall are you guys? Both of you look so tall.
We get that a lot. But we are tiny~ 157cm =)

?What’s the cutest thing someone did for you?
Jo: The cutest thing is when a perfect stranger gave me an extra rose because he saw my then bf only gave me one stalk of rose. lol
Sue: When my mum bought us balloons on our birthday

? Advice to those who are entering into their 20s?
Jo: If you just entering your 20s, Welcome to adulthood~
My advice … Live & Be happy. Do what you love. Learn about yourself as much as you can. Learn new things. Try new things. and use SPF HAHA!

Sue: This is an exciting time. Like what Jo said, "Learn about yourself as much as you can". It's the time you get to choose what you want to do, what you want to be and be sure to choose wisely who you surround yourself with. .
? MUSIC ?
Music by frumhere, kevatta - a lover's wishlist - https://thmatc.co/?l=5720AA49
Music by VALNTN - Mona Lisa - https://thmatc.co/?l=A9A8AAFB
Music by Syphax - Rose Lips - https://thmatc.co/?l=17A29243
Music by ninjoi. - Nishi - https://thmatc.co/?l=131DB05E
Music by Gil Wanders - Lost / Found - https://thmatc.co/?l=297B0B22
Music by Chinsaku - Blossom - https://thmatc.co/?l=682C114
Music by frumhere, kevatta - warm feeling - https://thmatc.co/?l=6E20961C
Music by eSNa - Playboy - https://thmatc.co/?l=82495F87

技術的な問題が発生しているため、一部の演出が使えません。
I can't perform some features because of a tech issue.

~~~ 日本語 / Japanese ~~~

?‍♂️...ご挨拶

初めまして。ヨージと言います。
アメリカに住んでいる純日本人です。日本語と英語が話せます。


?...配信について

気分や参加人数に合わせて主にレギュラーマッチかリーグマッチかレーティングプラベをやります。

リーグマッチは参加希望者が溢れたら毎試合ごとに交代でお願いします。計測は狙いません。
１回お休みした方はその次の試合か、人数が揃わず「連戦オーケーです」と合図が出たら再合流可能です。
回線落ちした方は次の試合はお休みで、他の参加者は連戦可能とします。
レーティングプラベについては下記を参照にして下さい。


?...レーティングプラベについて

裏で動いている専用のツールを使い、可能な限り実力差をなくしてチーム分けを行うプラベです。

* 初参加の方にはチャットで質問をしますのでお答え下さい。
* ガチルールは基本ガチエリアのみです。参加者全員のウデマエがS以上の場合のみ他のガチルールも行います。
* 人数が多い場合は体力制にします。いわゆる負け抜けの観戦交代制です。
名前の後ろに「†DRYH」が付いてる方は交代しにくくなります。
チャンネルメンバーシップを持ってる方は交代は不要です！


?...フレンドコード

SW-3516-9899-0870
* チャットには書かないで下さいな。
* フレンド申請を送ったら”必ず”Switchで使っているお名前を教えて下さい！
* すみませんが、名前が変わってて誰か分からない方と、人数合わせが必要なプラベを事前報告（最低1試合分前）無しで抜ける方は即解除です。次やる時にまた送って下さい。


?...パスワード

1069
* チャットには書かないで下さいな。


?...ルール

* 暴言・煽りはそっちの自由。だが、裁くのはこっちの自由だ。
* リグマやプラベを抜けたい時は事前報告（最低1試合分前）をお願いします。
* 現在遊んでいるのと別のモードをやりたいorやらないのかと聞くのはお辞めなさい。こちらで進行します。
* 回線落ちなどで他人に迷惑を掛けたら謝りましょう！幼稚園で習いましたよね。
* 試合中の回線落ちが複数回発生した方は、次回の枠までの参加を却下する可能性があります。
* 英語圏リスナーさんのチャットの翻訳は受け付けておりません。
例外として、伝える必要がある内容だと判断した場合は自発的に翻訳します。
* 不良ではないのでタイマンはしません。大人なのでかくれんぼもしません。


?...禁止事項

ここに書かれていないことでも一度注意されたら辞めてもらえると助かります。

* 放置や意図的な回線切断
* 裏部屋の作成・やり取り
* 他プレイヤーに対する指示・文句
* 自分や他人の個人情報の開示
* 個人的なネガティブな話
* リスナー同士の他人が混ざれない会話
* 似た・同じ内容の発言の繰り返し
* 宣伝・売名行為
* その他公序良俗に反する発言


それでは、健闘を祈る❗️

~~~ English / 英語 ~~~

?‍♂️...Greeting

Hello. My name is Youji. I'm full Japanese who living in U.S. I can speak Japanese and English. Nice to meet you.


?...About Stream

I’ll play league or rating private mainly depends on time or how many people are able to play.

When we play league, please take a turn every games. You may comeback after wait 1 game or if there are not enough players. If you disconnect, you should take a turn after the next game and other players are able to continue. Please read below about the rating private.


?...About Rating Private

It’s special private battles that makes no rank gaps between the both team as possible.

* I'll ask you a question on the chat if this is the first time you are playing this.
* If there are many players, I’ll do HP mode for taking turns to spectate. If you put “†DRYH” after your in-game name, it makes longer to let you to take a turn. You don’t need to take turns if you have a YouTube membership.


?...My Friend Code

SW-3516-9899-0870
* Do not write this friend code on the chat.
* If you sent a friend request, you MUST tell me your in game name!
* I’ll delete you if I don’t realize you because you changed in game name or if you leave my league or private without telling me in advance (at least 1 game). Please send it again next time.


?...Password

1069
* Do not write this password on the chat.


?...Rules

* It’s your choice to disrespect others or squidbagging, but it’s my choice to punish you.
* I want you to tell me in advance (at least 1 game) when you want to leave from my league or private.
* Do not ask that you want to play the other modes.
* If you annoy others (eg. disconnect), it’s a manner to apologize. I assume you already learned that at a kinder garden.
* If you disconnect often, then I might ask you not to play again until the next stream.


?... Prohibitions

Please watch out your actions even it’s not wrote on here if I warned you.

* AFK while playing the game / Disconnect on purpose
* Telling others what to do
* Telling your or others’ personal information
* Talking about your personal negative stories
* Talking to other viewers about personal topics that no one else can join
* Posting the same or similar message over and over
* Advertising
* Any other inappropriate talks


?…Commands

You may use these commands inside “” to Nightbot to react you.

“!japan”
It tells you the local time in Japan.


Have a good luck❗️

~~~ アドバタイズ / Advertisement ~~~

チャンネルメンバー登録 / Resister to a Channel Member
https://www.youtube.com/user/youjiman/membership
このチャンネルがお気に召しましたら。
If you like my channel.

~~~~~~

#NintendoSwitch#スプラトゥーン2#Splatoon2#視聴者参加型#PlayingwithViewers
Support the stream: https://streamlabs.com/youjiman

*This interview was recorded before the Jan. 11 national election.

Although many countries have begun to reconsider how to balance what they get in return for trading with China, this question has always been existential in Taiwan. Trade policies have oscillated inconsistently between opening up and restricting access to the Chinese economy. The challenges of doing trade with China is a global issue. And this is The Taiwan take.

Today’s guest is political scientist, Syaru Shirley Lin (林夏如), author of the book “Taiwan’s China Dilemma” (2016) and the forthcoming sequel “High Income Trap in East Asia.” In this episode, Lin maps out the economic ties between Taiwan and China and what drives policymaking in that area.

Lin retired as a partner at Goldman Sachs before becoming an academic. She now teaches world politics at the University of Virginia and global political economy at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Today’s episode is hosted by J.R. Wu - Chief of the Secretariat for INDSR (Institute for National Defense and Security Research) in Taiwan. Wu is a former journalist with nearly two decades of media experience in the US and Asia. She has led news bureaus for Reuters and Dow Jones.

Follow us on Twitter @ghostislandme
Add to our tip jar at Patreon (www.patreon.com/Taiwan)

SHOW CREDIT

Host - J.R. Wu
Producer / Editor - Emily Y. Wu (Twitter @emilyywu)
Researcher - Sam Robbins (Twitter @helloitissam)
Brand Design - Thomas Lee
Production Company - Ghost Island Media
MB01BDYSHNE94HX

https://ghostisland.media