關於 how would you define you as a person ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【德多少，就得多少】
YOUR VIRTUES DETERMINE HOW MUCH YOU GET

最近家附近有建築工地，噪音多了。

客人聽我的聲音不會有問題，因為我的耳機有麥克風，但如果他們不戴有麥克風的耳機，我聽他們的聲音會比較辛苦。

幾天前，為一位年輕的保險經紀通過Zoom批八字。

他進入Zoom會議室後，呆看著我。

我微笑看著他，故意不出聲，觀察著他。

幾秒後，他才粗魯的說：「哈囉？!」

奇怪了，貴為一個保險經紀，見人應該無數，打招呼的方式，怎能這麼粗俗？我阿姨阿伯級的客人，雖不常用Zoom，都比他懂禮貌。

我馬上回：「X先生，您好。您進來會議室，怎麼打招呼這麼粗俗？」

「我一向來都是這樣先哈囉，有聲音我才正式打招呼。」

「我倒是從來不會這樣。」

其實，這是個人修養的問題。

「你沒有讀我發給你的貼文嗎？為何你視訊沒有戴耳機？」

「我一向來Zoom都是這樣，沒有戴耳機。我以為你只是建議而已，不一定要戴。」

「我在貼文裡寫關於戴耳機的理由，你覺得不成立嗎？」

他想了幾秒，回：「是成立的。」

「我們都是提供服務的人。客人找我們，需要三大元素。第一個，就是同理心。你沒有同理心，難怪你說你的客人寧願聽別人說，也不信你說。」

「如果你要我戴，我現在就戴。」

他講完後，依然坐在那裡看著我，一動也不動。

後來，我說了幾句，他肯戴上耳機後，藍牙耳機也並沒操作好。

等了我一個月，這麼簡單的事情都不願事先做好。

看著他理直氣壯的模樣，頓時覺得他很可憐。

貴人坐在他面前，他說的一大堆話，都是以「自我」為出發點，完全不懂得「以和為貴」的道理。這不就是親手把貴人轟出門嗎？

「你這樣講話，就算講贏了，你真的贏了嗎？」

換成我是他的客人，我絕不會向他買保險，因為很明顯這不是一位真心為別人著想的保險經紀人。

那天，雖為他看八字，該說的我都有說，但我依然保留許多。

因為他缺德。

許多人把「德」看得很輕，覺得沒做壞事就是好人。事實上，不按照別人合理的要求做事，蓄意破壞規則，只顧自己，也是沒有德行可言。

有些人會吐槽，哎呀你學佛的人，要慈悲，何必跟他計較？不要著相！

我不是在意氣用事。

沒有智慧的慈悲，會害死人的。

祖師有訓 - 看命本來就是依客人的福德多寡，而賜福。品行不端的人，承受不起更多的福報，反而會遭反噬。再說了，對貴人都不好的人，對沒有利用價值的人就會更善良嗎？

不是捐錢的，就一定是好人，什麼事情都是要用心才算。

每個人都想要與眾不同，可是如果你的所作所為和一般人一樣，沒有比他們做得更好，那你的命格只配拿得起一般的命運。

不要迷信，以為什麼都是人家為難你，就跑去求神拜佛要打小人。我們命運裡的每一個障礙，每一粒石頭，都是自己放進去的。

你不改，障礙物就不會移。

在這裡聲明：沒有麥克風耳機的Zoom客人，我一概會取消諮詢，進行退款，沒得商量，沒得瞎掰。

能突然放假，真是太過癮了！

——————————————————

Recently, a construction site sprouted up beside my place, creating a lot of noise every day.

Zoom clients wouldn’t have a problem hearing me, but if they do not have a earpiece with a mic, I would have a problem hearing them.

Few days ago, I did a Bazi analysis for a young Insurance Agent via Zoom.

After he entered my Zoom meeting room, he looked at me blankly.

I smiled at him, deliberately staying quiet, and observed him.

Few seconds later, he said bluntly, “Hello?!”

How strange that an insurance agent, who probably have met tons of people, would greet in such an abrupt manner. My middle-aged clients, who rarely use Zoom, have better etiquette than him.

I replied instantly, “Hi, Mr X. Why is your greeting so crude, upon entering this meeting room?”

“I always say hello like this and wait to hear a reply, before I greet officially.”

“I never do that.”

Actually, this demonstrates the refinement of a person.

“Did you not read the post I sent you? Why are you not wearing a earpiece?”

“All along, I do Zooms in this manner without a earpiece. I thought it’s just a suggestion from you and it was not mandatory.”

“I wrote about the reason for clients to wear a earpiece. Do you find it invalid?”

He pondered for a few seconds and replied, “It’s valid.”

“We are both service providers. Clients look for us based on three main qualities. The first being the quality of empathy. You lack empathy and it’s no wonder you say your clients rather listen to others and not trust you as much.”

“If you want me to wear, then I will wear it now”

And he sat there looking at me, not moving an inch.

When he finally put on his ear pods, they did not operate well either.

It’s peculiar how despite a month of waiting for me, he was slow to get this simple thing done right.

Seeing how “self-assured” he was, for a brief moment, I find his behaviour pitiful.

His benefactor was sitting right in front of him, yet his words remained self-serving, totally oblivious to what harmony is about. Wasn’t this sending your benefactor straight out of the door?

“Even if you gain an upper hand talking like this, have you really won?

I would never buy insurance from such an agent, as obviously he was not the considerate kind.

I still read his Bazi that day, said what I should but there were also a lot I did not reveal.

Because he is lacking in virtues.

Many people think lightly of virtues. They assumed that if they do no evil deed, they are virtuous humans. Fact is, if you do not follow the reasonable requirements of other people, deliberately breaking the rules for your own gain, you have no virtue to speak of.

Some naysayers will tell me, but hey you are a practicing Buddhist, so you should exercise your compassion and not be bothered with his behaviour! Don’t get attached to external form!

This isn’t about me.

Compassion without wisdom brings more harm than good.

Since ancient times, it is a rule of thumb that we practitioners allocate good fortune to clients, based on their conduct and luck.

A person with undesirable conduct is unable to bear greater fortune, or there will be adverse consequences. Moreover, if a person is unkind to his benefactor, it is very unlikely that he will be kinder to another person with no value to him.

You can’t define a person as a good man, just because he is willing to donate money. We got to look at how he uses his heart.

Everybody wants to be special and different from others. But if what you are doing is the same as other people, nowhere better than them, then you can only carry a mediocre Destiny.

Don’t be superstitious to think that everybody is out to get you, and you go running to the temples or Feng Shui masters to chase away the villains.

Every obstacle in our destiny, every little stone that trips us, is placed in our lives by no other person but ourselves.

If you do not change, the obstacle isn’t going to budge either.

And here’s an official note: For any Zoom client that does not wear a earpiece with a microphone, I will cancel the consultation and give you a refund.

Having off days out of the blue are so much more fun!

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”

1
พี่ชายคนหนึ่งเล่าถึงพี่สาวของเขาว่า ก่อนหน้านี้นานมาแล้วพี่สาวถูกให้ออกจากงาน จากนั้นจึงรับบทบาทเป็นคนดูแล 'เรื่องในบ้าน' ขณะที่พี่น้องคนอื่นก็ออกไปทำงานในบริษัทหรือกิจการตัวเอง โลกของพี่สาวคือการดูแลพ่อแม่และภาระหน้าที่ต่างๆ ในบ้าน ซึ่งในสายตาที่มักตัดสินคนจากหน้าที่การงานอาจมองว่าชีวิตของพี่สาวเป็นชีวิตที่ล้มเหลว เพราะไม่มีงานทำ กระทั่งตัวเธอเองก็อาจรู้สึกเช่นนั้น

2
วันเวลาผ่านมาเป็นสิบปี กลายเป็นว่าพี่สาวรับบทบาทนั้นยาวนานกว่าที่คิด บทบาทชั่วคราวกลายเป็นความรับผิดชอบประจำ กลายเป็นชีวิตของเธอ

3
มาถึงวันนี้ เมื่อน้องชายมองกลับไปยังพี่สาวของตน เขาพบว่าเธอมิใช่คนล้มเหลวแต่อย่างใด ตรงกันข้าม, เธอทำหน้าที่ดูแลพ่อแม่และการงานในบ้านได้เป็นอย่างดี และเพราะเธอทำหน้าที่นี้แบบไร้ตำหนิจึงทำให้พี่น้องคนอื่นๆ ได้ออกไปทำงานอย่างที่รักอย่างที่ใฝ่ฝันกันเต็มที่โดยไม่ต้องพะวงเรื่องในบ้าน ทำให้พวกเขาประสบความสำเร็จกันในสายตาคนอื่น เหมือนทีมฟุตบอลที่กองหลังแน่นจนบุกได้โดยไม่ต้องห่วง

4
พี่ชายผู้นั้นเล่าว่า ถึงวันนี้เขารู้สึกขอบคุณพี่สาวมากๆ ถ้าไม่มีพี่รับบทบาทนั้น เขาไม่มีทางจะได้ทำอาชีพการงานของตัวเองเต็มที่แบบนี้เลย เขารู้สึกว่าตัวเองเข้าใจผิดที่เคยมองว่าพี่สาวล้มเหลวในชีวิต แต่เปล่าเลย เธอทำหน้าที่ในตำแหน่งของเธอได้ดีมากด้วยซ้ำ

5
เรื่องเล่าจากพี่ชายท่านนั้นฉายภาพ 'ความสำเร็จ' ในแง่มุมที่กว้างขวางกว่าเดิม
-ความสำเร็จของเรามีคนอยู่เบื้องหลังเสมอ
-ในหนึ่งความสำเร็จมักมีคนที่เสียสละ
-ความสำเร็จมีหลายรูปแบบและหลายสนาม
-เราแค่สำเร็จกันคนละแบบ

6
ความน่ารักอย่างหนึ่งของชีวิตและความสัมพันธ์คือการมองเห็นว่าที่เราโบยบินอยู่ได้นั้นมีใครเป็น 'ลมใต้ปีก' อยู่บ้าง ใครทำหน้าที่ประคับประคองให้เราบินได้อย่างใจ

7
ในโลกที่วัดความสำเร็จกันด้วยหน้าที่การงาน ชื่อเสียง ตำแหน่ง อำนาจ การเงิน เราอาจลืมนึกถึงหน้าที่ที่มีความหมายซึ่งไม่ปรากฏอยู่ในนามบัตร ไม่มีตำแหน่ง ไม่ได้อยู่ในแสงไฟ แต่มีคนอีกเป็นจำนวนมากที่ทำหน้าที่ของตนได้ดีไม่มีบกพร่อง

8
คงจะน่ารักดีที่เรารู้สึกขอบคุณกัน บอกความสำคัญให้เขารับรู้ถึงคุณค่าในสิ่งที่เขาทำอยู่ว่ามันมีค่ากับชีวิตของเรามากแค่ไหน และถ้าเราเองทำหน้าที่เป็น 'ลมใต้ปีก' ก็คงสำคัญเช่นกันที่เราจะไม่เผลอมองตัวเองว่าเป็นคนล้มเหลวตามไม้บรรทัดที่ชอบนิยามคนตามหน้าที่การงานทั่วไป เรามีคุณค่าในอีกสนาม ทำได้ดีในบทบาทของเรา

9
นิยามความสำเร็จแคบๆ อาจทำให้เราหลงลืมหน้าที่สำคัญหลายๆ อย่างในชีวิตและในสังคมไป มันอาจไม่ได้วัดกันที่กิจการใหญ่โต ตัวเลขทางธุรกิจ ยอดไลก์ ยอดผู้ติดตาม หรืออะไรแบบนั้นเท่านั้น บางครั้งคุณค่าของคนบางคนก็ดำเนินไปอย่างเงียบเชียบในชีวิตประจำวันธรรมดา ไม่มีใครมองเห็นแต่ขาดไปไม่ได้เลย

ดังเช่น 'ลม' ที่พยุงอยู่ใต้ปีกของนกที่โบยบินให้คนเห็นบนท้องฟ้า

ทุกการโบยบิน มี 'ลมใต้ปีก' เสมอ

#นิ้วกลม
#Roundfinger
1
One brother told his sister that she was taken out of work, then she took role as a ' home story ' while other siblings went out to work in their company or own affairs. Sister's world is taking care of parents and duties in the house. Judging people from job duties may consider a sister's life as a failed life because she doesn't have a job, herself may feel so.

2
The past ten years, turns out that the older sister plays a longer role than the temporary role, becomes a full time responsibility, becomes her life.

3
Today, when brother looks back to his sister, he finds that she is not a failure. Otherwise, she takes care of her parents and homework well. And because she does this flawless job, let other siblings go out to work in love with her dream. Full without home thought. Make them succeed in other people's eyes. Like a football team with a tight defender. Don't worry.

4
The brother said that he is grateful for his sister today. If he didn't take the role, he wouldn't have been able to do his own job. He feels like he was mistaken to see his sister fail in life, but no, she served his position. She was even good

5
The story from his brother is showing 'success' in a more extensive aspect.
- Our success is always behind it.
- In one success, there are always those who sacrifice.
- Success has many forms and many fields.
- We just succeeded in different ways.

6
One cuteness of life and relationship is seeing where we can fly. Who is the 'beneath the wing'. Who is holding us down to fly heartlessly.

7
In a world where you measure success by job, reputation, position, financial authority, we may forget to think of a meaningful duty that doesn't appear in a business card, no position, no light, but there are many people who do their job well. No defective.

8
It would be lovely that we are grateful to each other. It's important that he knows how much he does for our lives. And if we ourselves serve as ' wind under wing s', it's important that we don't care about ourselves. I'm a failed person according to the ruler that likes to define people according to the general job duties. We value another field. Well done in our role.

9
A narrow definition of success may make us forget about many important duties in life and in society. It may not be measured by big business, business numbers, likes, followers or something like that. Sometimes, some people's values go quietly. Normal daily life no one can see but no one can see it.

As such, 'wind' is under the wing of a bird that flies to let people see in the sky.

Every fly has always ' wind under wing s'

#นิ้วกลม
#RoundfingerTranslated