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

〖認真聽〗教授真心話 😏 | 在家工作（上課）根本就很好 | #用最chill的姿態來上課 | 遠距參與的魔幻時刻 | 在家上班的優缺點 | #遠距有限公司 | WFH的組織傳播爭論 // 李長潔 ft. 阿丹老師、小也老師 💻
.
隨著確診人數的下降，疫喵施打的普及，情況發展狀況逐漸轉好，我們已經準備好回到正常美好的日常生活。可以在咖啡館享受午后時光，可以去台南來一場小旅行，可以與親朋好友共處狂歡。
.
但，你有想要回去辦公室上班嗎？#遠距工作是不是好像也是一個不錯的選項？🤔
.
今天的節目，與 臺灣通傳智庫 的podcast節目「台灣問事」聯播，和世新大學的黃采瑛教授、文化大學的徐也翔教授，一起討論「#遠距課程」、「#在家上班」的可能與不可能。透過Robert C. Pozen與Alexandra Samuel在《遠距有限公司》（Remote, Inc）一書，提供了四個遠距工作時應該注意的組織溝通策略給大家~
.
📌 #今天的內容有
.
▶ 史上最長暑假，終於開學了
▶ 遠距課程超好玩~
▶ 數位溝通的（不）可能性
▶ 遠距授課是一個「魔幻的時刻」
▶ 用最Chill的姿態來參與
▶ 在家工作的神奇時刻
▶ 紙本公文遞送應該要數位化了吧~
▶ WFH到底有沒有效率
▶ 在家上班的「組織傳播」爭論
▶ 遠距有限公司
▶ 在家工作根本就很好
▶ 工作時最重要的是「八卦」

|

📣 #KKbox 聽這裡：https://podcast.kkbox.com/episode/OsPXXbf_70BynlpB4_
.
📣 #Firtory 聽這裡：https://open.firstory.me/story/cktxytj3y7jx80939n4q7egeg?ref=android
.
📣 #Spotify 聽這裡：https://open.spotify.com/episode/75pLp2muay5h0V9h4CwI5v?si=CpzanfvHQi6rT_zpo-N0pA&utm_source=copy-link&dl_branch=1
.
📣 #Apple 聽這裡：https://reurl.cc/KrpKpp
.
📲 #FB 完整論述：https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1862370957283854&id=208541192666847

|

/// 完整論述 ///
.
隨著確診人數的下降，疫喵施打的普及，情況發展狀況逐漸轉好，你是否也在期待日常生活能夠回到平常安定的狀態。可以在咖啡館享受午后時光，可以去台南來一場小旅行，可以與親朋好友共處狂歡。但，你有想要回去辦公室上班嗎？遠距工作是不是好像也是一個不錯的選項？
.
▓ #全世界最大的在家上班實驗
.
在人手一機的時代，傳播學者José van Dijck（2013）在《連結的文化》中寫到，從Web1.0到Web2.0，就是2001到2012年之間的巨大數位轉型，傳播機器運作下的虛擬交流協作，成為一種重要的社會文化形式。勞動的場景亦無法自外，從電子郵件、互聯網站到同步視訊，組織的內部與外部運作，一直以來其實都被傳播技術與機器介入著（García-Orosa, 2019）。只是當前情景更加促使我們去思考，組織與個人的工作關係裡，技術介入所產生的意想不到的可能與不可能。
.
連TIME雜誌都指出：「這是世界上最大的在家上班實驗。」越來越多的工作者與組織因為益情的關係，嘗試了遠距工作的可能性。從組織溝通（organizational communication）的角度來看，隨著組織轉向遠距協作，組織溝通也變得越顯重要。
.
各個組織必須依據實際情況的變化，提出相應的工作安排，也留意員工個人的健康。甚至我們可能會突然發現，原本依賴面對面溝通的諸多工作場景中，其實存在著諸多問題，像是敷衍了事的工作規劃、相處不良的人際關係。
.
▓ #遠距工作時，組織溝通更重要！
.
所謂組織溝通，是指一個組織群體中的語言互動過程，強調由人與關係所建構出來的世界，我們每日的生活都無法離開組織中的訊息產製、互動模式、意義建構、領導統御、文化形塑等多種行為（秦琍琍，2011）。也就是說，幾乎人類生活中的所有事務，都是依靠組織及其協商、合作、交流來達成且構造世界（李長潔，2012）。所以，當人們不能群聚在一起時，究竟會不會造成工作上的不便與劣勢？
.
遠距工作對生產力的影響，其實早在80年代時，因電信技術的發展而被討論過，當時的結論是：在家工作根本很好啊，其有較低的物理需求、較高的自主性、可以明確地交出成果。當然，能夠成功在家工作的人，通常有高度的自我激勵與自律能力（Olson, 1983）。不過，還是有研究者認為，工作需要有一個足以提供完全溝通的實體場所，才能促成對話與消減誤解（Kraut et al., 2002）。
.
正如我們所經歷的，許多遠距協作的傳播技術已經存在或快速開發中，電子郵件、電子布告欄（bulletin boards）、即時訊息（instant messaging）、共享文件、視訊會議、通報服務（awareness services）等，這些數位技術在很大的程度上，協助了組織成員進行對話溝通，也滿足工作效能（Olson et al., 1997）。
.
但也有學者如Kang等人（2020）針對僅依賴於電子郵件的遠距工作進行研究，他們發現，建立在電子郵件「收發」特質上的溝通，使得組織變得支離破碎。需要仰賴更完善的組織訊息規劃，例如定義郵件的重要性層級，才能讓組織成員真正參與到工作的運作中。
.
▓ #四個遠距工作時應該注意的溝通策略
.
Donald Sull、Charles Sull、Josh Bersin（2020）在麻省理工大學商學院的管理期刊上建議進入WFH的組織與人們，如何更快速、無痛地進入這個新的工作時代。他們找了441位人力資源管理者進行調查，結果發現「參與度」、「生產力」、「連結感」，是當前疫情下遠距工作首要的問題。這些問題除了傳播交流、任務協作的硬體與軟體備整外，更好、更適合的組織溝通設計就是關鍵之處。
.
Robert C. Pozen與Alexandra Samuel（2021）在《遠距有限公司》（Remote, Inc）一書中，提供了四個遠距工作時應該注意的組織溝通策略：
.
1⃣ #訂好基本規則（ground rules）：雖然從前面的討論來看，人們在可以自主控制工作目標時，達到不錯的工作效能。但定立基本的團隊規則，才會幫助組織成員知道自己應該怎麼行動。所以，我們應該確立一套關於工作時間、會議舉辦、電子郵件傳遞、資訊共享的明確指南。人們才不會迷失在居家日常與不斷檢查最新訊息的漫漫長日中。
.
2⃣ #建立團隊會議（team meetings）：每週的例常視訊會議，不但是為了傳遞最新的組織資訊，分享團隊工作成果，促進知識與經驗的交流。同樣重要的是，除了工作會議，我們應該擁有一段產生社會關係的友誼時光，像是虛擬的「茶水間閒聊」（water cooler），每天早上與同事一起喝一杯咖啡，讓組織成員在遙遠的距離中，仍然可以感受到同理心。此外，在視訊會議時打開鏡頭也是一個重要的溝通策略，其可以展現非語言溝通的暗示，表現許多無法言明的事情。
.
3⃣ #善用一對一的交流（one on one）：當我們身處在實體辦公室時，一對一的溝通無時無刻都可能會發生。但進入到遠距工作後，一對一溝通的機會便要主動規劃與創造，以確保每一個人都沒有「脫隊」。這種較密切的互動並非用來進行嚴密細微的工作檢查，其目的是在發現組織成員需要支持與幫助的地方，讓每個人都可以獲得足夠的關注。
.
4⃣ #確實地評估表現（performance reviews）：遠距工作的情況下，我們時常無法獲得足夠的工作反饋與激勵，有時候根本就被埋沒在螢幕背後。所以，清晰明確、容易上手的績效表現評估方式，可以讓組織成員彼此了解工作的成果，知道自己應該維持哪些優秀的做法，以及需要改進哪些盲點，或進一步地微調工作流程。這也是一個不錯的組織學習與個人成長的途徑。
.
▓ #數位時代中的組織溝通素養
.
遠距工作到底行不行的爭論，就這樣從80年代持續到現在，不管你接受與否，這已然是全世界的人都正在做（或已經做過）的事了。如何在居家上班、遠距工作的情境下，建立有效的組織溝通，尚有著巨大的挑戰。
.
我們勢必須要花更多的時間制定工作計畫，穩定溝通的流程，協調各種事務，運用更豐富、更精確的口語表達與人際互動技巧，來創造與嘗試工作的新形態。無論我們是否可以真正地順利地進入「新的後疫情時代」，遠距工作的可能性，與對組織溝通素養的重視與培養，將是這場疫情中珍貴的學習與成果。
.
🗂 #參考文獻
.
1. Van Dijck, J. (2013). The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford University Press.

2. García-Orosa, B. (2019). 25 years of research in online organizational communication. Review article. El profesional de la información (EPI), 28(5).

3. 秦琍琍（2011）。《重返實踐：組織傳播理論與研究》。台北：威仕曼。

4. 李長潔（2012）。組織傳播研究中的論述取徑：一個領域的探索。《傳播與管理研究》，11（2），3-38。

5. Margrethe H. Olson. 1983. Remote Office Work: Changing Work Patterns in Space and Time. Commun. ACM 26, 3 (March 1983), 182–187.

6. Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., Brennan, S. E., & Siegel, J. (2002). Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. Distributed work, 137-162.

7. Olson, J. S., Olson, G. M., & Meader, D. (1997). Face-to-face group work compared to remote group work with and without video. In K. E. Finn, A. J. Sellen, & S. B. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-mediated communication (pp. 157–172). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

8. Kang, R., Zhu, H., & Konstan, J. (2020). Organizational Bulk Email Systems: Their Role and Performance in Remote Work. In microsoft.com.

9. Sull, D., Sull, C., & Bersin, J. (2020). Five ways leaders can support remote work. MIT Sloan Management Review, 61(4), 1-10.

10. Pozen, R. C., and Samuel A. (2021). Remote, Inc.. Harper Business.

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”

Say hi to Nicholas! He’s 21, is a competitive martial artist and USED to be shy🕺 Nicholas is one of our Performing Arts Certificate students and has been joining our classes for the last few months.

We’re so pleased to know that he feels this program has helped him grow out of his shell and gain confidence, yay! Our vibrant Head Of Enfiniti Academy Joanna Bessey sorted that out immediately : “You can’t be shy in my class!” 🎭🎬

With Zoom classes, Nicholas describes that he’s more comfortable, because he’s in his room, in his own home. He’s a self-confessed overachiever and is challenging himself to take the FULL course, and hopefully someday become a professional singer-dancer-actor. We’re behind him all the way, to help him achieve his dreams!

Our new semester begins this Saturday, 20th Feb! Join Nicholas and a great bunch of young people online. Did you know, Enfiniti Academy’s Performing Arts Certificate come with 10 UNIVERSITY CREDITS 🤩🤩

You get to learn a lifelong skill, learn to communicate effectively and gain confidence – whilst having fun, meeting new friends AND earning Uni credits, awarded in collaboration with Malaysia University of Science & Technology, how about that!

Email enact@enfiniti.com.my for more info NOW! 😉
-
#PerformingArts #Leadership #Confidence #Communication #ActingSkills #Acting #Sing #Voice #Dance #Theatre #Drama #Actor #OnlineLearning #LifeLongLearning #StaySafe #BeProductive #EnfinitiAcademy #EnfinitiMakesMagic

For more updates, follow me @ https://www.instagram.com/naomineo_/

Photoshoot collab with OneThreeOneFour: https://www.instagram.com/onethreeonefour/
Website: https://www.onethreeonefour.com/

OneThreeOneFour is a Singapore-based wedding photography company that took off in 2015 with the aim of simplifying the process of arranging destination wedding photoshoots for couples. Starting out by providing only overseas wedding photography services in 3 countries, the company shoots for more than 500 couples a year to 15 countries and many more cities around the world. From the beaches of Bali to the Korean wedding studios, we bring you the most amazing wedding photoshoot experiences!

OneThreeOneFour provides a hassle-free experience for couples wishing to engage destination pre-wedding or wedding photography services. Each photography package comes with gowns and suits, make-up & hairstyling services, transportation to shooting locations, and a translator for countries like Korea and Japan, where the language barrier may be a concern.

All in all, OneThreeOneFour takes care of all the necessary arrangements required for an overseas wedding shoot and provides a one-step solution for couples. Furthermore, all communication with clients are done seamlessly through online platforms, so that the company's services are easily accessible to couples from all around the world.

Gowns and suits Bridefully Yours: https://www.instagram.com/bridefullyyours/
Website: http://www.bridefullyyours.com/

Bridefully Yours is a newly launched gown brand that only started in February this year. They have a large collection of 160 gowns and 60 suits that come in all silhouettes and colours. Their gowns are catered to the modern bride and strays away from the conservative and typical white wedding gowns.

Cinematography by: http://instagram.com/kacofilms

-------------------

CONTACT:
Email me at business@naomineo.com directly for work enquires

FOLLOW ME:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/NaomiNeo_
Facebook Profile: https://www.facebook.com/Naaomineo
Facebook Page: https://facebook.com/therealnaomineo/

WEBSITE:
http://www.naomineo.com

Don't say we didn't share the good stuff with you guys! With only RM0.88, you get to enjoy Grab Prosperity Pack worth up to RM100 from free deliveries from Grabfood, GrabPay and lots more! Get the Prosperity Pack: https://grb.to/ProsperityPackTheMingThing


So… does he actually like you if he doesn’t get things for you? Or… not.
Join us this season coming up to Chinese New Year before your aunties and uncles ask where your boyfriend or girlfriend is. Let us help you… try… and find one.

We hope you’ve enjoyed the video fam! :)
Remember to HIT that THUMBS UP & SHARE the video with your friends!
#themingthing #CNY2019 #comedy
-----

SPECIAL THANKS
IACT College - The Creative Communication Specialist College
http://iact.edu.my

CASTS' INSTAGRAM
Tiara Anchant (@tiara_anchantress)
Tasha Chitty (@tashachitty)
Melissa Campbell (@heymelbelle)
Ming H. (@dmingthing)

-----
FIND US ON:
FACEBOOK: http://facebook.com/dmingthing
INSTAGRAM: http://instagram.com/themingthing
WEBSITE: http://thecorestudios.com

For project inquiries, EMAIL: contact@thecorestudios.com