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”
同時也有4部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過1,920的網紅艾蛙媽 VS. 達樂哥Aiwa Hu,也在其Youtube影片中提到,【台中北屯美食】養鍋石頭涮涮鍋文心店~食材新鮮多樣化,高CP值平價火鍋店。歡迎加入就是愛美食台中FB社團 - #養鍋石頭涮涮鍋 #養鍋 #平價火鍋 - 湯頭美味,菜盤分量飽滿! 環境寬敞舒適,自助吧很豐富。 - 養鍋Yang Guo石頭涮涮鍋-文心店 地址:台中市北屯區文心路四段679號 電話:04...
「大寶法王2020」的推薦目錄:
- 關於大寶法王2020 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於大寶法王2020 在 Pazu 薯伯伯 Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於大寶法王2020 在 東西縱橫記藝JunieWang Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於大寶法王2020 在 艾蛙媽 VS. 達樂哥Aiwa Hu Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於大寶法王2020 在 NLF賽事精華 Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於大寶法王2020 在 李基銘漢聲廣播電台-節目主持人-影音頻道 Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於大寶法王2020 在 大寶法王事件真相 - Facebook 的評價
- 關於大寶法王2020 在 大寶法王官網的推薦與評價,FACEBOOK、PTT和網紅們這樣 ... 的評價
- 關於大寶法王2020 在 大寶法王官網的推薦與評價,FACEBOOK、PTT和網紅們這樣 ... 的評價
大寶法王2020 在 Pazu 薯伯伯 Facebook 的最讚貼文
《大典》——科技專制之想像與現實,且談全民「健康碼」
文:薯伯伯
「李博把女兒送去岳父母那過夜,回家第一件事是洗手。這是妻子伊好立下的規矩,洗手前不許接觸任何東西。遵循醫護人員的六步法,每個手指、包括指甲縫都洗到,再用紫外線燈照射烘乾。」
這是北京作家王力雄《大典》的序幕,書成於 2017 年,當初有幸收到王先生寄來的初稿,一邊徒步西藏與印度接壤的邊陲地帶墨脫,一邊用文字轉語音的功能去聽小說。在 2020 年重讀《大典》,卻覺得像是在寫現在抗疫之事。書中還提到一個情節,主席廢除任期制,獨斷專行,有如古代帝皇,而習近平是在小說出版後一年才修憲廢除任期限制。
有人說王力雄是預言家,實情是他的寫作,總是包含著多年以來對政權的分析及理解,再加進亦真亦假的小說情節。《大典》屬反烏托邦寓言小說,在一個熟悉但又虛構的國度,政權壟斷造鞋業,在鞋底植入追蹤晶片,從而實現網格化監控。監控者看到兩人站立的距離甚至鞋尖的方向,就能輕易猜度二人關係。
即使在微信、支付寶盛行的國度,這種全方位的監控聽起來仍覺天馬行空,但一場瘟疫過後,居然達成了幾近滴水不漏的網格化監控。當各國人民對手機抗疫的私隱還猶豫不決,中國在毫無民間阻力的情況下推出了全民「健康碼」,實現了前所未有的人身監控。健康碼分為紅黃綠三色,但分級因素不明,現在或將來會否成為網格化限制人身自由的工具?
美國記者及社運活躍人克萊因撰寫的《震撼主義》,提及西方勢力趁著其他國家的災難或戰爭,從而推動新自由經濟主義,對當地進行大規模的經濟改動,繼而剝削人民利益,這就是「休克治療法」。災難過後,往往是專制政權推新改革的最佳時機,經濟如是,監控措施亦如是。
在智能手機盛行的年代,首次給予掌權者強大的監控權限,你的購買記錄,你的聊天記錄,你的出遊記錄,早已見怪不怪。但在疫情之前,也難以相信可以再加強早已精密的監控,現在因著自爆的瘟疫而強推更為嚴密的「健康碼」,中國媒體立即跨耀有通輯多年的犯人,幾天之內前來自首,因為無法申請健康碼,也就無法住宿,無法乘車,連進餐廳都有困難。這種措施對待通輯犯,即使不是設計原意,估計沒有太多人膽敢反對,但萬一對付的是異見人士或爭取權益的平民百姓呢?
在《大典》出版後兩年,我問王力雄,回看小說,對照當今變局,有何新的想法。王力雄稱目前高科技的政權為「科技專制」,歷史上從來沒有出現過如此高科技之下的權力,能夠以少制多,只有少數人就能掌握著所有人的命運。
不過王力雄在《大典》裡對科技專制的想像,似乎給讀者一絲希望。因為科技一日千里,鞋聯網、夢造儀、電子蜂、神經阻斷劑,人民跟不上科技發展,領袖本身也跟不上科技運作,所以「主席」只能倚賴幾個科技核心成員去掌管科技,幫他達成科技專制的夢。書中最意想不到的發展,是體制裡一個微不足道的小人物,因為掌握了科技精要,反而成為破局的關鍵。
走回現實,科技既是專制的武器,也能成為掙扎的本錢——VPN、加密通訊工具、網絡公海群組、分散式的社交網絡、經濟圈地圖、甚至去中心化的加密貨幣錢包,不少已經成為日常不可或缺的組件。
然而,最終的破局,會否像小說一樣超乎想像,我們無法得知。唯一肯定的是,黑天鵝總是以最出人意表的方式展露其羽翼,牽一髮,動全身,到時候拍起的星塵,就不是一般的風暴了。
書本介紹:
《大典》
作者: 王力雄
出版社:大塊文化
出版日期:2017年12月
在北角森記圖書、旺角序言書室等各大書店,均能購買《大典》。
另外,王力雄及其他作家共同製作的【絕地今書】YouTube 頻道,由真人以普通話朗讀書章:
【大典-上】01-06期:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At8sjdVMIrk
【大典-下】07-13期:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShCqkd7NZWM
原文刊於《正義和平》2020年6月刊〈打開書櫃〉專欄。此文略作修改及補充。
大寶法王2020 在 東西縱橫記藝JunieWang Facebook 的最讚貼文
法國國王路易十五的一生風流,情婦數量或許可在法國皇家史上名列前茅。在他族繁不及備載的花名冊中,偏偏就有這麼一位史上首位平民出身的王室情婦-龐巴杜夫人得以受寵19年。
龐巴杜夫人能在浪子國王心頭卡位那麼久,並非只憑藉美貌,畢竟以色侍人,色衰則愛馳,愛馳便恩義絕。😎 深具藝文涵養與品味,同時熱愛閱讀,擁有學識內涵,也是她從眾多鶯聲燕語之中勝出的重要原因。
從這副琺瑯鎏金放大鏡,以及機械式閱讀小桌,便可以窺見洛可可教母的小書房有多浮誇,欸,講究。😍 然後這張閱讀小桌竟然跟浪漫主義大師-德拉克洛瓦也扯得上關係…
如果像龐巴杜夫人一般,在書房裡擁有這麼精巧斑斕的小桌和琺瑯鎏金放大鏡,你會更著迷於閱讀嗎?😁😁😁
🎊2020年最後一天,就以欣賞精緻華美的洛可可工藝做為結尾。祝福大家2021年事事美好,還有要記得保暖啊💪🧥🍷
#浮誇風洛可可書房
#龐巴杜夫人的精彩人生看這裡
https://juniewang.mystrikingly.com/blog/a1291e6de70
#東西縱橫記藝JunieWang
#IG https://www.instagram.com/ar
https://juniewang.mystrikingly.com/blog/e406127da95
大寶法王2020 在 艾蛙媽 VS. 達樂哥Aiwa Hu Youtube 的最佳解答
【台中北屯美食】養鍋石頭涮涮鍋文心店~食材新鮮多樣化,高CP值平價火鍋店。歡迎加入就是愛美食台中FB社團
-
#養鍋石頭涮涮鍋 #養鍋 #平價火鍋
-
湯頭美味,菜盤分量飽滿!
環境寬敞舒適,自助吧很豐富。
-
養鍋Yang Guo石頭涮涮鍋-文心店
地址:台中市北屯區文心路四段679號
電話:04-22435589
營業時間:平日11:30~14:30、17:00~22:30,假日11:00~22:30
FB粉絲團:https://goo.gl/BBsZma
=======================
《新竹美食旅遊+延伸閱讀》
自費體驗【2021新車開箱】Kymco FAMOUS 新名流 125 ABS七期
https://youtu.be/JegWosrAeh0...
【5分鐘出好菜】台式炸年糕,作法超簡單!
https://youtu.be/EZDy4RmUDYo...
【2021福袋懶人包】寶雅福袋!登錄發票再抽奧迪百萬名車
https://youtu.be/0WjfOxnrC7g...
茂昌草本茶:紅豆花芝圓,香Q可口
https://youtu.be/qwDSgudhIyI...
Bingo 賓果廚房,濃湯,飲品,冰淇淋,甜湯,餅乾無限暢飲
https://youtu.be/uHblB22h50k...
【2020新竹寶山鄉】秘境之旅!
https://youtu.be/TT1EHN2TNBo...
帝王食補,胡椒豬肚雞口味清爽
https://youtu.be/cZaUte_UO-U...
黑糖飄香遊新城,甘蔗職人體驗好好玩!
https://youtu.be/9tm9DKfNQ8Y...
日本進口鮪魚蔥花丼甘鮮滑腴,油嫩爽口!
https://youtu.be/E4YpsGWkwLQ...
肥滋滋鯛魚燒!一隻25元
https://youtu.be/dAMxqQi1tNk...
傳承三代的純樸家鄉味,雅珍號ㄍㄜㄍㄜ羹
https://youtu.be/vsTefYqVxYs...
北門炸粿,百年老店!
https://youtu.be/I2V2BBxxwEM...
涼冰菓店,五十年代古早冰棒!
https://youtu.be/El4Uj1poHXQ...
甘木赤水咖啡館,真正的手做蛋糕只有親嚐才知道
https://youtu.be/fy7bOEHrQGE...
無名雞蛋糕,一個六元
https://youtu.be/ZqbJgND-_Os...
到日式老屋「湖畔生活」的豊賀伴手,快樂吃梅花冰
https://youtu.be/pjKjesa6jPk...
美美早餐點心館,脆脆的香酥餅皮配上雙蛋
https://youtu.be/_7Uwd5lm_cg...
熊寶廚房健康滷味,家傳私房菜
https://youtu.be/gxl0nDYz4Sw...
竹北鄧記牛肉餡餅!爆漿牛肉餡餅
https://youtu.be/c30gi9EBQfM...
新竹旅遊Vlog X來新竹市採荔枝
https://youtu.be/jjSTs0jOlMg...
金陵包子,鮮肉包就是要配青辣椒
https://youtu.be/Ynv9rgh1J0A...
竹北音樂酒吧推薦!Soul bar DJ現場演奏
https://youtu.be/QKXPsolWYOw...
料多味美的禾日香魯肉飯專門店
https://youtu.be/_fgCv-EiKWY...
草本茶 竹北勝利店,開幕慶!
https://youtu.be/rLMBXPVwX4Y...
吳家紅茶冰-中正店,歡慶開幕
https://youtu.be/pCYk25OgpMI...
【新竹湖口老街美食推薦】小窩口窯烤Pizza
https://youtu.be/n0C_5Ff20Mc...
【新竹美食週記】湖口老街-邱媽媽客家美食
https://youtu.be/LEEHvLdXICw...
鄭家祖傳特製雞蛋糕!民國57年創立
https://youtu.be/L0Nre8kjbR0...
東門旺角!母親節大餐推薦
https://youtu.be/ufGGvDWSlq0...
【新竹假日花市】香Q可口的白玉米只要10元!
https://youtu.be/9NZ6y3H1bmk...
肆爺炒泡麵!三杯雞炒泡麵創新又美味!
https://youtu.be/xIYNnhQRs4M...
烤桶柑橘子!阿嬤的古老智慧
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uK3J......
【竹北人的後花園】厚食聚落
https://youtu.be/Q_8qVxIX3Ag...
老漁港新海鮮美式餐廳,十全十美水桶海鮮
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZdqH......
ㄤ咕麵,新竹關西人氣老店
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzAFR......
燒番麥!一級棒碳烤玉米
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1TKl......
太空總薯,現烤現做起司馬鈴薯香濃可口
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVjTr......
米咕家的日式飯糰好吃又健康啊!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuSlG......
璽子牛肉麵,斤餅專賣店!斤餅很好吃阿!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjPwU......
竹蓮市場上好佳筒仔米糕,手工現切的肉燥飯
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv4Wm......
======================================
❤ 艾蛙的社群 / 歡迎追蹤 ❤
instagram:https://www.instagram.com/aiwa_hu/
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/aiwa.vs.dollar
Youtube:https://www.youtube.com/c/AiwaHualwa1919
My Blog:http://alwa1919.pixnet.net/blog
Website:https://www.aiwamkt.com/
My Shop:https://alwa1919.waca.ec/
Tiktok:https://vt.tiktok.com/ZGJDTPWht/
大寶法王2020 在 NLF賽事精華 Youtube 的精選貼文
►Facebook聯絡我: https://www.facebook.com/funznlf
MR NLF是英雄聯盟賽事剪輯頻道
會定期更新各賽區的比賽精華和不定時更新制作選手的實況精華
全場精華 — 即是將Bo3或Bo5的比賽濃縮為20-30分鐘以內的精華,所以剪輯會比較快節奏。
希望喜歡影片的人可以分享留言訂閱
大家的支持就是頻道維持下去的動力
大寶法王2020 在 李基銘漢聲廣播電台-節目主持人-影音頻道 Youtube 的最佳解答
本集主題:「工作就是在打怪:用公關心法,打通你的職場任督二脈!」介紹
訪問作者: 公關溫拿(Winner)
內容簡介:
職場生活,是一連串的打怪和GG,
用【僕人心法】【打怪心法】【王子心法】讓工作不卡關!
作者Winner,業界人稱「公關溫拿」「中小企業明燈」「記者直達車」。一個沒人脈、沒後臺的南部小土妹,一路從總機小姐爬到臺灣第一大集團關係企業公關發言人,職場資歷近二十年。透過書中四十八則血淋淋的真實故事,用多年來淬鍊的「關鍵心法」,帶你在職場上破關打怪。
【職場僕人心法】練就向上管理、異業合作、人脈經營的本領
Winner戲稱自己如同伺候皇帝爺的「太監長」。其實不限公關一職,只要身為受雇者,舉凡向上管理、橫向管理、對外管理,當你能把自己當作「僕人」來服務他人,你會做出真正的差異化!
──用保護心態與絕對忠誠去服事你的「主子」。
──做一個不會在背地裡傷害前東家的「好前任」,讓「你前老闆說……」成為最強履歷。
──接待每位客戶時,都當作是這輩子唯一的機會。
──時時將對方的困難放進待辦事項,讓人知道「找你可以解決〇〇問題」。
【職場打怪心法】對付職場霸凌、酸民起底、職涯危機的智慧
職場上往往有著形形色色的「怪獸」──狗屁倒灶的鳥事、霸凌你的同事、起底你的酸民、KPI比天花板還高的老闆,甚至最大的怪獸來自於你的「心魔」,而過不去的關卡終究會鬼打牆般不斷遇到。
──緬懷使你上進的人,但不要變成那樣的人;常想著如何成全別人,而不是霸凌別人。
──不遭人忌是庸才;那些只會嘴的人,一定停在原地,沒有長進。
──作夢之前,先讓經濟自由。
──執著於一件事,可能是放不下內在的驕傲。
──找到你的職場「命定」,成為職涯上支撐你的關鍵力量。
【職場王子心法】洞察貴人的模樣,成為真正的職場王子
你認為的成功人士,都具有什麼共通特質?高高在上、野心勃勃、無所畏懼?其實,真正值得學習的大人物,你會從他們身上看到「僕人」般的謙虛姿態。
──尊榮之前,必有謙卑;權柄是用來服務人,不是拿來使喚人的(張善政院長)。
──不分好人壞人、窮人富人,一律一視同仁(方志男醫生)。
──把客戶的事當作自己的事,而不只看作賺錢的案子(呂秋遠律師)。
──自信絕非來自豪車豪宅的物質條件,而是樸實度日、處之泰然的態度(蔡學峰總經理)。
作者簡介:公關溫拿(Winner)
本名王蜜穜。業界人稱「公關溫拿哥」,長達十七年國內外企業品牌操作經驗。曾操盤瘋狂賣客、網勁科技代運營之淘寶臺灣館、鴻海科技集團關係企業富盈數據等知名品牌。服務海內外企業大老、政商名流,以及許多想像不到的難搞人物。
一個南臺灣鄉村北上謀生的小姑娘,近二十年的職場旅程中,從電視臺助理、總機小姐一路爬升到國內最大上市櫃公司次集團發言人。看盡職場大小鳥事,經歷酸甜苦辣,到如今輕鬆愜意,用多年來的「職場打怪心法」成功練就一身「斜槓鍊金心法」,不到四十歲即提早進入半退休人生。
作者粉絲頁: 公關溫拿
出版社粉絲頁: 遠流粉絲團
請大家支持,我全部六個粉絲頁
李基銘主持人粉絲頁:https://www.facebook.com/voh.lee
李基銘新聞報粉絲頁:https://www.facebook.com/voh.twnews
李基銘的影音頻道粉絲頁:https://www.facebook.com/voh.video
漢聲廣播電台「fb新鮮事」節目粉絲頁:https://www.facebook.com/voh.vhbn
漢聲廣播電台「快樂玩童軍」節目粉絲頁:https://www.facebook.com/voh.scout
漢聲廣播電台「生活有意思」節目粉絲頁:https://www.facebook.com/voh.life
大寶法王2020 在 大寶法王事件真相 - Facebook 的推薦與評價
黃女於2020年1月2日將以上的訴求改為,於羅卓仁謙臉書個人網頁,臉書『為上師大寶法王護關』之社團留言版,鏡週刊臉書專頁刊登道歉啟事三個月。 ... <看更多>