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

【國立臺灣大學109學年度畢業典禮 致詞代表 資訊工程學系韓哈斯】
Student Address, National Taiwan University Commencement 2021
International student Seth Austin Harding from Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering

.
校長、教授、以及在螢幕前的各位同學，大家好。非常感謝臺大給我這個機會。我是韓哈斯，來自美國華盛頓特區。我會以自身的真實經驗出發，來跟大家分享臺大帶給我的收穫。

我當初為什麼選擇來台灣求學呢？我小時候非常喜歡看武打片，然後我十歲的時候去看了一部電影叫做「功夫熊貓」。這部電影成為了我最喜歡的電影，主角「阿波」的故事跟我的故事很像。我看完了之後就決定要開始學功夫，所以去了「美國武術學院」。那個時候我每天都聽旁邊的人講中文，到了高中我就決定開始學中文。當時我遇到了一位貴人，她是從台北到美國來教書的中文老師，她教的課是我當時最喜歡的課，我每天去她的教室跟好朋友練習。到了高中畢業時，我是全高中中文最好的非母語人士。同時，我第二喜歡的課程是電腦科學，那時候我是程式能力數一數二的學生。後來在成功錄取夢寐以求的學校：臺灣大學之後，我感到雀躍不已，因為我既可以繼續學習中文，也可以持續在世界頂尖的學府中，往電腦科學的方向精進自我。

不過老實說，當我回顧大一的時期，我也曾迷失自我。雖然我修了很多很多的中文課，但是我那時只聽得懂大概一半的課程內容。跟大家對美國人的印象不同，我其實很害羞，也很害怕舉手提問，我甚至不太敢參與社交，所以當時朋友也很少。我開始想家，也變得有一點憂鬱。那時籃球是我唯一的紓壓方式。

但更不幸的是，我在打籃球時弄傷了我的前十字韌帶，做了兩次手術，需要一年半才能恢復。許多的負面情緒壓得我喘不過氣。我被困在人生的低谷，不知如何是好。我覺得我的中文不夠好，我也被診斷出失眠跟ADHD，另外，美國高中的數學太簡單了，來這邊不夠用。種種壓力讓我足不出戶，找不到自己的人生方向。後來，我向臺大心輔中心以及我的心理醫師尋求協助，然後我也開始跟系上有更多互動。有一位教授叫徐宏民跟我說，"Never give up"，雖然那時候我覺得這句話太過於簡化了我的問題，不過，在我仔細思考了一個禮拜之後，我下定決心，發誓不讓自己被這些事擊敗。我決定要克盡全力，認真做好每件事。這是我人生的轉捩點，我開始變得異常自律。當時廖世偉教授和洪士灝系主任帶我進入它們的研究室鑽研學術。這重燃了我對資訊工程的熱忱，提醒了我當初會愛上這個領域的原因。我開始研究人工智慧以及區塊鏈，也開始跟其他系上同學交朋友，一起成立臺大人工智慧應用社NTUAI。NTUAI現在是校內頗具規模的技術研究社團，致力於推廣人工智慧給任何對該領域有熱忱的學生。歡迎加入NTUAI，可以掃描我們的QR CODE。

最近，由於疫情的緣故，我已經一年半沒回美國了。但是沒關係，因為我已經找到了我第二個家。我很愛臺大，以及台灣的人事物。雖然我經歷了人生的低潮，但這裡的一切總是給我滿滿的祝福與協助。最後，我想送給大家「功夫熊貓」裡的一句台詞： "You just need to believe"。只要用樂觀的態度去面對困難，就有能力改變自己，甚至改變身旁所愛的人。就像阿波的父親說的，"心誠則靈，只要你相信，點石就能成金。根本沒有什麼秘笈。只有你。"謝謝大家。

.
==============================

.
President, professors, and classmates, I'm very honored to be here. Thank you to NTU for giving me this opportunity. My name's Seth Austin Harding, and I'm from the D.C. metropolitan area. I'm going to tell a real story that's personal but that's relatable and what I see as the real me.

What motivated and guided me to take my undergraduate studies in Taiwan? When I was very young, I really loved watching kung fu movies, and when I was 10 years old, I went to the theater to watch "Kung Fu Panda". This became my favorite movie as I felt like the story of the main character Po was one to which I could very much relate. After watching this movie, I decided that I wanted to start learning kung fu, so I went to the United States Wushu Academy. At the time, I began hearing Mandarin on a daily basis, so when I was in high school, I decided to begin formally studying Chinese. It ended up being my Chinese teacher from Taipei who was my favorite teacher who taught my favorite class, so I decided I'd hang out in the Chinese classroom every day and practice lots. By the time graduation came around, I had attained the highest proficiency in Chinese among any non-native speaker in my school. My second favorite class was computer science, and I ended up attaining among the best coding skills in my school. After getting accepted to the school of my dreams -- National Taiwan University -- I felt honored, humbled, and excited; I could now spend time at among the world's finest universities studying Chinese and at the same time advancing my knowledge of computer science.

But when I look back at my freshman year, to be honest with you, I didn't know what I was doing. Despite having taken very many Chinese classes, when I went to the NTU lectures, I understood only about half of what the teachers were saying. Contrary to most people's impressions of an American, I was actually too shy to raise my hand, to ask questions, or to even meet with teachers after class, so I had very few friends at the time. I started to become homesick and depressed. At that time, I found that basketball was the only way I knew of relieving my stress. However, while playing basketball, I had torn my ACL and it would take two surgeries and a year and a half in time to fully recover. At this point, I felt caught between a rock and a hard place. In fact, this was the lowest point of my life, and I didn't know what to do. I felt like my Chinese wasn't good enough, I had been diagnosed with insomnia and ADHD, and I felt like the math taught in America was too simple to allow for me to keep up with my classmates. I was under immense pressure, and at this time, I lost any sense of purpose or direction. Later on, I went to seek help from NTU counseling, from my psychiatrist, and from my department. I reached out to Professor Winston Hsu from CSIE, and he told me this: "Never give up"; it was such an oversimplified way to approach such a complex series of problems, I had thought. However, I pondered these words intensely for one week, and by the end of that week, I had made a firm decision. This would NOT be another example of me giving up. I decided to go all out, to work diligently and passionately on all tasks at hand. This was the turning point of my life; I started to discipline myself to a very high degree. At this time, I met my then-to-become advisors Professor Shih-Wei Liao and Professor Shih-Hao Hung and entered their labs to begin research. Finally, the passion that I had for computer science that I had previously held in high school was kindled again, and I was finally reminded why I loved this field. I began my research life in blockchain and AI, and at the time I entered the lab, I also began creating NTUAI. NTUAI is now a large and highly successful NTU club that is dedicated to the research and public understanding of AI. Welcome one and all to join us; please scan our QR code here.

For a year and a half I haven't returned to America because of covid. But not to worry; I have found my second home, away from home. I love it here in NTU and I cherish all of the things I've had the privilege to experience in Taiwan. I've gone through the most difficult of struggles in my life here, but I've also had the most fortunate and blessed of experiences. To conclude, I'd like to quote a line from "Kung Fu Panda": "You just need to believe". As long as you are willing to adopt an optimistic attitude in facing challenges and hardships, you may become a positive force in changing the lives of those around you as well as your own life. It all depends on how you view it; just like what Po's father says, "there is no secret ingredient. It's just you." Thank you, everyone.

詳見：
https://www.facebook.com/NTUCommencement/posts/2718185771805180

.
#臺灣大學 #畢業典禮 #NTUCommencement2021 #學生致詞代表 #臺大資訊工程學系 #韓哈斯 #SethAustinHarding

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”

***《請大家多多注意！》***
這篇想說明一下關於今天發生的盜用我身分及利用作疑似詐騙事件，及想請大家以後多多注意，小心不要被假帳騙取個人資料的。

今早一起來就收到來自朋友及大家各方的通知&詢問訊息，內容都是關於一個疑似是我的身分的個人FB帳號。
**再次澄清，該帳號並不是我本人所開的帳號！！！**
該個人帳號是利用了近似本專頁的帳號所開的，而名稱及頭像照片都是用了我的。
本專頁的帳號為 siutaoCOS，而該帳號則用了siutaoC0S，把cos中的英文字「O」轉為了數字「0」以混淆視聽。
當時該假帳的一則貼文內容為一些奇怪的中文及請大家在一個奇怪網站填寫表格，而該網站也是用了本人的身分，內容疑似是想要詐騙大家的個人資料（包括信用卡資料）。
本人發現後已即時發出澄清及請大家幫忙檢舉的貼文（即今天下午本專頁、本人個帳、本人IG上所發表的）
該假冒帳號的擁有者看到後，來給本專頁發來了DM，還反問我為什麼要搞砸他，最後還發出惡言反罵我。及後，在大家幫忙檢舉期間，該假冒帳號卻把其帳號的貼文、轉帖通通刪除，把頭像等等的都全部換掉，想要逃過FB審查。而FB審查到現在還是堅持為該帳號沒有問題。

到這刻我也無能為力了😢
非常感謝大家一起幫忙檢舉該假冒帳號，雖然還沒能成功檢舉，但以此希望警惕一下大家要小心謹慎，防止被詐騙😭🙏🏻💦
此次事件中如果你有曾經把個資給了假冒帳號的話，建議請立刻更改相關資料/帳號，加強保安，防範被盜用該資料/帳號的可能。

*****在此也向大家再次聲明，
本人不會隨便以任何個人帳號加好友，除非已事前作公開通知/私下通知/經過溝通達成共識。
（也希望大家體諒一下我也需要私人空間🙏🏻😢）
以FB專頁也只此一個，並沒其他分頁！！！（Singapore及Vietnam Fans Page為本人認可，不是什麼假帳。）
以及，除通販作用外，本人並不會要求大家提出個人資訊。該通販用的資訊也絕對不會交給第三方，不會外流！
還請大家以後也多多注意了！如有發現/遇到假冒帳號的話，請幫忙檢舉！😭🙏🏻*****

再次感謝大家支持、相信及幫忙！愛你們😭🙏🏻❤️

————————————

**<>**
This post will be describing the incident that has happened earlier today, and I would like everyone to be aware and not accidentally give away personal information to a fake account.

This morning when I woke up, I received notifications and questions from friends and everyone, regarding a Facebook account pretending to be mine. *I would like to remind everyone again that this account is not created by me!!!*
This account was recently created and used the same name and profile as my own. My page link is siutaoCOS, and this fake account used siutaoC0S, changing the capitalized [O] in the link name to the numeral [0] zero to befuddle everyone.

During that time, the account created a post that asked everyone to fill in their information in a suspicious website, which was created under a fake identity, attempting to scam personal and credit card information.
Upon discovery, I have posted clarifications and requested everyone to assist in reporting the post. My clarifications were posted on my page, Instagram and personal account.
The scammer messaged my page directly after my revealing that the account was a fake, and asked why I wanted to ruin him, and even harshly scolded me in return for no reason. After that, with the assistance of everyone, the scammer deleted all related information to the attempted scam and changed his profile and cover picture to avoid Facebook’s automated investigation system. In the end, Facebook declared that there was no issue with the scammer’s account.

At this point I was powerless to do anything. 😢
I would like to thank everyone’s efforts in reporting the account, and though it was not successful, I would like to take this opportunity to inform everyone to be aware, and not get scammed by impersonation efforts.😭🙏🏻💦
If by any chance you had filled in personal information or other information, please immediately change all passwords and information, and contact relevant agencies if necessary. This is to prevent misuse of your information and linked accounts.

*****I would also like to mention, that I would not randomly add friends into my personal account, unless it was a public notice, privately discussed or agreed upon.
(I would like everyone to understand that I need some personal space as well🙏🏻😢).
This is my only page on Facebook and I have no other pages!!! (The Singapore and Vietnam Fan Pages were approved by me, and they are not fake accounts or impersonators.)
Apart from direct sales, I will never request for information from anyone. This information from sales will not be disclosed to anyone else or to a third party! In the future, if anyone notices an impersonator or fake account, please help me to report them!😭🙏🏻******

Once again, I would like to thank everyone who has supported me, believed in me and helped out! Love you all! 😭🙏🏻❤️

If your target audience is millennials and Gen Zers, TikTok should be the social media platform you choose to promote yourself and your brand. With 800 million active users, TikTok has an unmatched reach and penetration in these demographics.

TikTok offers a goldmine of opportunities for marketers and influencers. However, one place that it fell short was live videos, which are offered by competitor platforms like Facebook, Twitch, and Instagram.

In 2019, TikTok launched their Live feature by which content creators can live stream their videos from the platform.

Live video streaming allows TikTokers to connect with their followers in real-time using comments. It can also help you monetize your account if your live stream audience sends you virtual “gifts.” The best part about live videos is that you can cover a lot of content through them since TikTok hasn’t yet restricted their duration.

In this article, we will walk you through the process of creating live streams. Along with that, we will also share tips and tricks that you can leverage to maximize the results of your live videos.

What Can You Do on YouNow?

Watch live videos, browse trending hash tags, categories and broadcasters
Broadcast live videos
Follow, chat and connect with other broadcasters/fans
Like and comment on videos
In-app purchases (Users can purchase gifts for other followers).
Many teens use the app to broadcast their talents for example dancing and singing are very popular broadcasts. In addition, teens use the app for advice and to ask questions, there’s even a #bored hashtag which is very popular among teens. Other strangely popular hashtags include #sleepingsquad where people broadcast themselves sleeping.

One of the things we noticed about the content posted by teens is that many of them broadcast from their bedrooms, we always recommend being careful about sharing personal information online.

If your target audience is millennials and Gen Zers, TikTok should be the social media platform you choose to promote yourself and your brand. With 800 million active users, TikTok has an unmatched reach and penetration in these demographics.

TikTok offers a goldmine of opportunities for marketers and influencers. However, one place that it fell short was live videos, which are offered by competitor platforms like Facebook, Twitch, and Instagram.

In 2019, TikTok launched their Live feature by which content creators can live stream their videos from the platform.

Live video streaming allows TikTokers to connect with their followers in real-time using comments. It can also help you monetize your account if your live stream audience sends you virtual “gifts.” The best part about live videos is that you can cover a lot of content through them since TikTok hasn’t yet restricted their duration.

In this article, we will walk you through the process of creating live streams. Along with that, we will also share tips and tricks that you can leverage to maximize the results of your live videos.

What Can You Do on YouNow?

Watch live videos, browse trending hash tags, categories and broadcasters
Broadcast live videos
Follow, chat and connect with other broadcasters/fans
Like and comment on videos
In-app purchases (Users can purchase gifts for other followers).
Many teens use the app to broadcast their talents for example dancing and singing are very popular broadcasts. In addition, teens use the app for advice and to ask questions, there’s even a #bored hashtag which is very popular among teens. Other strangely popular hashtags include #sleepingsquad where people broadcast themselves sleeping.

One of the things we noticed about the content posted by teens is that many of them broadcast from their bedrooms, we always recommend being careful about sharing personal information online.

If your target audience is millennials and Gen Zers, TikTok should be the social media platform you choose to promote yourself and your brand. With 800 million active users, TikTok has an unmatched reach and penetration in these demographics.

TikTok offers a goldmine of opportunities for marketers and influencers. However, one place that it fell short was live videos, which are offered by competitor platforms like Facebook, Twitch, and Instagram.

In 2019, TikTok launched their Live feature by which content creators can live stream their videos from the platform.

Live video streaming allows TikTokers to connect with their followers in real-time using comments. It can also help you monetize your account if your live stream audience sends you virtual “gifts.” The best part about live videos is that you can cover a lot of content through them since TikTok hasn’t yet restricted their duration.

In this article, we will walk you through the process of creating live streams. Along with that, we will also share tips and tricks that you can leverage to maximize the results of your live videos.

What Can You Do on YouNow?

Watch live videos, browse trending hash tags, categories and broadcasters
Broadcast live videos
Follow, chat and connect with other broadcasters/fans
Like and comment on videos
In-app purchases (Users can purchase gifts for other followers).
Many teens use the app to broadcast their talents for example dancing and singing are very popular broadcasts. In addition, teens use the app for advice and to ask questions, there’s even a #bored hashtag which is very popular among teens. Other strangely popular hashtags include #sleepingsquad where people broadcast themselves sleeping.

One of the things we noticed about the content posted by teens is that many of them broadcast from their bedrooms, we always recommend being careful about sharing personal information online.