關於 write only language ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

今天接受 DW 中文 - 德國之聲 電視台的採訪，聊聊我們在奧運期間與小粉紅的互動經驗，以及台灣在國際賽事上如何長期被中國打壓。

英文還是講得有點結巴，因為我們事先準備的回答都沒有用到。

Q：可否形容一下在網路上與中國網民的交流？
After our posts, they would usually come and write really disgusting racial slurs towards Japanese and Taiwanese.
Then we will start our reply with asking how their days were. If they are feeling alright. Or they had a bad day at work.
Usually they will stop there.
However, there are some people who sent us private messages saying “hey we speak the same language and have the same ancestors, why are you supporting the Japanese.” I often rolled my eyes and then tried to ask them to have a real conversation either via zoom or clubhouse. Most of the times they refuse because they say they don’t want to make their people look bad. But I would think to myself that what they are doing online already make their people look bad.

We only succeeded once inviting a pinkie to our live show. He turned out to be a super chill and nice dude. He just has a lot of frustration towards his own government, but he can’t really say anything within the firewall. Thus he came outside to see what the world is like. It turned out a lot of people are mad at the Chinese government, especially the Taiwanese people. I think this totally contradicted with his belief, so he lashed out at us.

#百靈果 #大戰小粉紅 @dwnews

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”

Taiwan Can Achieve More,
But It Takes Bilingualism
台灣可成就更高 但需要「雙語國力」

《作者從事與雙語教育相關的工作已斷斷續續30餘年。雙語已成國策，那就身體力行，開始用雙語發表意見吧。歡迎讀者對此形式提供您的意見及指教》

Among all sustaining forces, what Taiwan lacks most is the force of language. When people talk about a country’s competitiveness, most likely the main benchmarks are the military force, wealth force, technology force or even cultural force. The concept of“Force of Language”rarely came into mind. But in fact, linguistic capability is one of the key factors that can make or break a country in the long run , if not in the short.

在所有的可持續力量中，台灣最缺的就是語言的力量。當人們談論國家的競爭力時，通常主要的標竿都是軍事力量、財富力量、技術力量，甚至文化力量，而想都想不到「語言力量」這回事。但事實上，語言表達的能力，遲早也將是國家成敗的關鍵要素之一。

Examples are plenty. Take the tiny country of Singapore as a sample. Its existence and survival rests upon its capacity in applying and managing multi-lingual resources. Without that force of language, it can’t possibly thrive in a geographical setting as complex as this – with Malaysia on the north, Indonesia on the South-West, India to the West, and, particularly, the landmass of China up north. Geography is both a blessing and a curse to the country of Singapore, but its multi-linguistic capacity is a pure blessing. Without it, Singapore would still have been a trading center in that region and there is no way for it to have become one of the worldwide financial centers as today.

例子不勝枚舉，小小的新加坡就是一個樣本。它的生存，基於它運用、管理多重語言資源的氣度和能力。若缺少了這種「語言國力」，新加坡不可能在如此複雜的地理環境下茁壯 – 北有馬來西亞，西南有印度尼西亞，西有印度，尤其遠遠的北方還有中國這樣一塊大陸。地緣對新加坡這個國家既是祝福也是詛咒，但其多語能量則是百分之百的祝福。若非掌握語言國力，新加坡或許還能成為區域的貿易中心，但沒有可能變成今日的世界金融中心之一。

Hong Kong, in the past tense, also benefited tremendously from its bilingualism. By comparison, the mighty city of Shanghai in China will never replace the economic role Hong Kong used to play for China. I remember a sharp comment made by the past Premier of Singapore, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew. Many years ago when visiting Taiwan, he was asked this question by a reporter : “Can you foresee Shanghai replacing Hong Kong one day“? “Never!”was Lee’s reply. “Why?” Here comes the issue of the force of language, “Because I simply can’t see that the Shanghainese can speak better English than the Hong Kong people”. End of discussion.

香港在過去，也大大得利於它的雙語能力。相較之下，中國上海這個巨型城市，永遠也無法取代過去香港對中國的經濟角色。我猶記得新加坡前總理李光耀的一針見血評論。多年前在造訪台灣時，記者問他：「你能預見上海有一天取代香港嗎」？「絕不可能！」李光耀回答。「為什麼呢」？這裡就看出語言的力量了，「因為我根本看不到上海人的英文能力有超過香港人的一天」。討論就此結束。

Taiwan is good at technology as well as in many other aspects. It produces over 50% of the high-end semiconductor chips for the world’s high-end industrial and military uses, and it also designs at least 25% of the chips for world’s daily electronic devices. Which means, should Taiwan’s economic activities be disrupted by a hostile party , or even worse, should the island country fall under a hostile party’s control, as a consequence, the entire world would be affected severely, even to the point of functionally inoperative.

台灣在科技上很行，其他方面也不錯。在世界的高端工業及軍事應用中，台灣生產的高端半導體晶片佔比超過50%。在日常生活的電子設備上，台灣設計的晶片也至少佔比25%。這意味著，若台灣的經濟活動被某個敵意方擾亂，或在更糟情況下台灣這個島嶼國家落入敵意方的控制，後果將嚴重波及整個世界，甚至導致世界在功能上無法運作。

On top of that, Taiwan is ingenious in meeting unconventional demands for outlandish components. The most apparent case would be that of the birth of Tesla. When Elon Musk couldn’t get designers and factories from other parts of the world to risk making his non-heard-of components, he came to Taiwan and found willing and capable suppliers. Without the ingenuity of Taiwan’s able engineers, Tesla’s EV could have been delayed for many more years and might even have missed its first-to-market timing.

此外，台灣在非傳統、奇思妙想的零組件領域也很高明。最顯著的例子就是特斯拉的誕生。當伊隆馬斯克在世界其他地方碰壁、沒有工廠和設計師願意為他冒險製造那些聽都沒聽過的零組件的時候，他來到台灣找到了出路和供應商。沒有台灣的這份高明和工程師，特斯拉的電動車可能延誤多年，甚至失去市場首發的時機。

In the political arena, Taiwan has been firmly placed in the first tier among countries of democracy. To be fair, Taiwanese citizens still stand eager for eliminating the residual, inherited authoritarian elements in its political system; however, from a global standpoint, the mere presence of this remaining endeavor, by itself, proves that Taiwan has already passed the point of no return of an evolving democratic country.

在政治競技場，台灣已經被牢牢放在了民主國家的前列。但還是得公平地說，台灣公民還在熱切得期待把自己政治體制中那些殘留的、繼承來的威權成份加以剷除。然而從全球眼光來看，這種熱切現象的本身，就足以證明台灣作為一個民主還在演化的國家，在道路上已經沒有回頭餘地了。

In any aspect, Taiwan should have received a much higher level of acknowledgement from the international community than what it gets now. It makes people wonder why it didn’t.

無論哪個角度，台灣都應該得到比現在更高的國際認可和關注。這讓人感到奇怪，為什麼不是這樣呢？

Sure, one can blame the “Cut-Taiwan-off-the-World” program that the neighboring CCP (Chinese Communist Party) exercised. But blaming is not productive, not in everyday life nor in politics. We need self-assertive solutions much more than airing complaints.

當然，我們可以歸咎於中共的「切斷台灣的世界聯繫」招數。但是，歸咎往往是不起積極作用的，在生活中如此，在政治上也一樣。自我斷然提出解決方案，遠比時時抱怨要重要的多。

Citizens in Taiwan need to be able to speak out for Taiwan, not waiting for others to speak for it. To speak out to the world, you need languages! Presently, over 90% of the citizens on this island write and speak in just one language : the written Mandarin Character and the spoken Mandarin plus dialects.

台灣公民有必要自己為台灣發聲，而不是只等待第三方替台灣發聲。既然要自己對世界發聲，那就需要語言（國力）！當前，90%的台灣公民只會用單一的語種書寫和表達：書面的華文系方塊字，和華語加上數種方言。

This causes consequences in two-folds. On the political side, when Taiwan citizens shout in Mandarin, only people who understand Mandarin in other parts of the world can know what Taiwan is shouting for. Sadly, 96% of those who understand are under the firewall enclosure in China. Furthermore, Taiwanese messages are being censored, twisted and manipulated by the CCP in order to prevent its subjects from hearing it.

這造成了雙重後果。在政治面，當台灣公民用華語呼喊時，世界上只有聽得懂華語的人知道台灣在呼喊什麼。遺憾的是，96%聽得懂華語的人被鎖在中國的防火牆內。更糟的是，中共為了防止其控制的人民聽懂，持續不斷得堵絕、扭曲、操弄來自台灣的訊息。

On the economy side, although the top-layer of the academics, businessmen and technical elites are all quite proficient with a second language, mostly English or Japanese, the majority of the able engineers and middle managers in Taiwan cannot communicate efficiently enough to bring out their personal or organizational potentials.

在經濟面，雖然頂端的學術工作者、企業家、技術精英都有不錯的外語能力，例如英文或日文，但是大多數的能幹工程師和中層管理者，還無法有效的通過外語溝通以展示他們自身或組織的真實潛力。

It’s such an obvious yet ignored national issue : Taiwan needs bilingualism for its political sustainability and economic prosperity. A thriving bilingualism in Taiwan can be achieved by flipping its mentality towards education, or by changing its attitudes towards “outsiders” and installing a more open-minded immigration policy.

如此明顯的國家級議題卻遭到忽視：台灣的政治可持續及經濟的繁榮，非需要「雙語國力」不可。若想如火如荼的推動雙語國力，有兩條路可走，一是翻轉其對教育之心態，或改變對「外來者」的態度、建立一套更開放的移民政策。

Either way, Taiwan must implement a bold and innovative approach to this “force of language” challenge. And that approach can start today. Are you ready? Yes, I meant YOU！

不論採哪一種方式，台灣對這「語言國力」的挑戰，必須實施一種既大膽又創新的路數。今天就可以開始，你準備好了嗎？沒錯，說的就是你！

* 更多有關台灣之未來，請往 《范疇 前哨預策網》InsightFan.com
* 註冊為免費會員，瀏覽部份熱點議題電子書、觀點及預先的對策
* 註冊為追蹤會員，支持一個永遠獨立、終身不受任何政治體制管
束、推動台灣世界地位、思考人類文明未來的園地

Finally, a video in Vietnamese! ? I've had 2 conversational lessons so far, so I'm still a beginner. In this video, I do my homework, which is to write a basic paragraph about my daily life. I made a lot of mistakes (which I only noticed after my tutor fixed it), so if you spot something halfway, please just watch until the end first!

Hôm nay mình làm bài tập tiếng Việt. Tôi đã viết một đoạn văn....rất khó!
Vietnamese resources on my website https://lindiebotes.com/vietnamese-resources/

#NóiTiếngViệt #Polyglot #StudyWithMe

———
?SOCIALS

Insta → https://www.instagram.com/lindiebotes/
Website & resources → http://lindiebotes.com/
Twitter → https://twitter.com/lindiebee
FB → https://www.facebook.com/lindiebotesvideos/
Ko-fi → https://ko-fi.com/lindiebotes#


✨GOODIES

$10 free italki credits (after first lesson) → https://go.italki.com/LindieBotes
10% off Du Chinese (my favorite app!) enter LINDIE10 at checkout → https://www.duchinese.net/
All discounts → http://lindiebotes.com/discounts
All language resources → https://lindiebotes.com/language-resources/
Merch → https://society6.com/lindiebotes


?ABOUT

Welcome to my channel! My name is Lindie and I share my love for languages through my polyglot progress and language learning tips here. South African by birth, I spent most of my life in France, Pakistan, the UAE and Japan. Now I work as a UI/UX designer in Singapore. I'm a Christian and strive to shine God’s light in all I do. May this channel inspire you to reach your language goals!

New here? Best videos → https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRCVN94KILKXGx45JKaVBSpPkrpXhrhRe
FAQ → https://lindiebotes.com/faq/


?BOOKS I USE

Practical Chinese Grammar → https://geni.us/PracticalChineseGram
Japanese for Busy People on Amazon → https://geni.us/JapaneseForBusy1
Advanced Japanese for Busy People → https://geni.us/JapaneseForBusy3
Korean Grammar in Use Intermediate → https://geni.us/KoreanGrammarUse
Korean TOPIK exam prep → https://geni.us/TOPIK2prep
Short Stories in Spanish → https://geni.us/spanishshortstories


?EQUIPMENT

Camera → https://geni.us/CanonPowerShotG7
Mic → https://geni.us/RodeSmartLavMicr
Tripod → https://geni.us/ManfrottoTravel

———
Some links are affiliate links, and a percentage goes towards supporting my channel.
Collabs & partnerships: hello@lindiebotes.com

I Understand English But I Can't Speak It? Watch For An Action Plan If You Understand English But Can’t Speak Fluently. Need More Learning Material? Get A Free Unlock It Book. You Only Take Care Of Shipping: https://speakfluently.danlok.link

So many people are perfectly able to understand English, read English and write English but they tell me "I understand English but I can't speak it," If that’s you, watch the video to find out why you understand English but can’t speak fluently and the action plan you can implement to change that. Share this video with a friend who is learning English.

? SUBSCRIBE TO DAN'S YOUTUBE CHANNEL NOW ?
https://www.youtube.com/danlok?sub_confirmation=1

Check out these Top Trending Playlists -
1.) Boss In The Bentley - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEmTTOfet46OWsrbWGPnPW8mvDtjge_6-

2.) Sales Tips That Get People To Buy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6Csz_hvXzw&list=PLEmTTOfet46PvAsPpWByNgUWZ5dLJd_I4

3.) Dan Lok’s Best Secrets - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZNmFJUuTRs&list=PLEmTTOfet46N3NIYsBQ9wku8UBNhtT9QQ

Dan Lok has been viewed more than 1.7+ billion times across social media for his expertise on how to achieve financial confidence. And is the author of over a dozen international bestselling books.

Dan has also been featured on FOX Business News, MSNBC, CBC, FORBES, Inc, Entrepreneur, and Business Insider.

In addition to his social media presence, Dan Lok is the founder of the Dan Lok Organization, which includes more than two dozen companies - and is a venture capitalist currently evaluating acquisitions in markets such as education, new media, and software.

Some of his companies include Closers.com, Copywriters.com, High Ticket Closers, High Income Copywriters and a dozen of other brands.

And as chairman of DRAGON 100, the world’s most exclusive advisory board, Dan Lok also seeks to provide capital to minority founders and budding entrepreneurs.

Dan Lok trains as hard in the Dojo as he negotiates in the boardroom. And thus has earned himself the name; The Asian Dragon.

If you want the no b.s. way to master your financial destiny, then learn from Dan. Subscribe to his channel now.

★☆★ CONNECT WITH DAN ON SOCIAL MEDIA ★☆★
YouTube: http://youtube.danlok.link
Dan Lok Blog: http://blog.danlok.link
Dan Lok Shop: https://shop.danlok.link
Facebook: http://facebook.danlok.link
Instagram: http://instagram.danlok.link
Linkedin: http://mylinkedin.danlok.link
Podcast: http://thedanlokshow.danlok.link

#DanLok #SpeakEnglish #English

Please understand that by watching Dan’s videos or enrolling in his programs does not mean you’ll get results close to what he’s been able to do (or do anything for that matter).

He’s been in business for over 20 years and his results are not typical.

Most people who watch his videos or enroll in his programs get the “how to” but never take action with the information. Dan is only sharing what has worked for him and his students.

Your results are dependent on many factors… including but not limited to your ability to work hard, commit yourself, and do whatever it takes.

Entering any business is going to involve a level of risk as well as massive commitment and action. If you're not willing to accept that, please DO NOT WATCH DAN’S VIDEOS OR SIGN UP FOR ONE OF HIS PROGRAMS.

This video is about I Understand English But I Can't Speak It - Action Plan
https://youtu.be/mranR3Npnic
https://youtu.be/mranR3Npnic

10個工程師的愛恨情仇-2020全球資訊工程調查看一看 Stack Overflow ft. Wei Chen | 10 Preferences of Software Engineers
-
誰說工程師沒有情感？這次就來揭露工程師們的各種愛恨情仇。

同樣是工程師，但是人人各有所好。這次邀請到工程師Wei Chen 一起回答10個survey中的問題，並根據 Stack Overflow 在2020年對於2019年的資訊工程調查結果，做討論與分享我們的看法。

1. 最受歡迎/熱門/常用的程式語言 The Most Popular Programming Language 0:35
2. 最喜歡的程式語言 The Most Loved Programming Language 1:48
3. 最討厭的程式語言 The Most Dreaded Programming Language 3:30
4. 最想學/嘗試的程式語言 The Most Wanted Programming Language 4:51
5. 最有錢途的程式語言 The Highest Paid Programming Language 5:51
6. 最有錢途的資訊工程相關職位 The Highest Paid Developer Type 6:50
7. 女性工程師參與度 The Percentage of Female Survey Respondents 8:28
8. 最看重的工作條件或要素 The Most Important Job Factor 9:37
9. 面對面 或 線上交談？IRL or Online Chat? 10:55
10. 鳳梨披薩？Pineapple on Pizza? 12:07

好奇「Untyped 對啊我是工程師」是如何誕生的嗎？
來聽聽學吧少女的訪談 👉https://youtu.be/bZXGuZoYDWA

#工程師都愛StackOverflow #今年女工程師會更多 #鳳梨披薩萬歲
一定要看到影片最後面並且在「YouTube影片下方」按讚留言訂閱分享唷！
-
歡迎留言告訴我你的想法，或是你想認識的程式語言唷！
每（隔週）週六晚上9點更新，請記得開啟YouTube🔔通知！
-
【相關連結】
2019 資訊工程調查 Stack Overflow Developer Survey: [https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019]

【What I used to make this video】
個人電腦：Apple MacBook Pro [https://amzn.to/2HKgI2T]
拍攝錄音錄影: iPhone X [https://amzn.to/3c0s6Fu]
相機: Canon 80D [https://amzn.to/2VVmiYz]
錄音: Rode [https://amzn.to/3aqnzL2]
鍵盤: Logitech MX Keys Wireless Keyboard [https://amzn.to/3awqi5L]

【愛屋及烏】
Facebook 臉書粉專 👉 [https://www.facebook.com/untyped/]
Instagram 👉 [[https://www.instagram.com/untypedcoding/]
合作邀約 👉 untypedcoding@gmail.com

-
Untyped 對啊我是工程師 - There are so many data types in the world of computer science, so are the people who write the code. We aim to UNTYPE the stereotype of engineers and of how coding is only for a certain type of people.
凱心琳: 一個喜歡電腦科學邏輯推理，在科技圈努力為性別平等奮鬥的女工程師。
-

This video contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I'll receive a small commission.
圖片影片音效：[giphy.com] [pngwave.com][freesound.org]
Walk Around by Roa https://soundcloud.com/roa_music1031
Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported — CC BY 3.0