關於 love is in the needs of others to see their own responsibility ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

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”

看到一些卑劣酸民將麵攤大叔的個資公開在PTT及網路上，他就是一個普通上班族，發文內容皆有憑有據，卻要被這些酸民傷害成這樣。

那些人認為「查得到的個資為什麼不能公布！？」

我不曉得這種說法法官與檢察官會不會採信？
希望那些分享文章的酸民有準備好律師，
也希望麵攤大叔加油💪。

■因為連續 2 天徹夜未眠，我向公司請假看診。
昨天工作忙碌，一直到今天凌晨，我才和焦糖哥哥通上電話，講了40分鐘。他犧牲他的睡眠時間，聽我訴說心情。

焦糖哥哥重情重義，我是他的粉絲在先，之後才成為他的朋友，完全是因為他的人格感召。

■我現在在計程車上，9：00跟身心科醫師約診。我想告訴大家我們剛才的對話。

嘉行，雙連的綠地保留
是我拜託你要幫忙聲援的
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3195538100502218&id=198653540190704

愛滋人權
是我拜託你幫忙倡議的
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3256874671035227&id=198653540190704

而這些事情，與我們都沒有切身關係。

我也只是短暫兩個月、在生命經驗中，意外成為「相異伴侶」中的「未感染者」。

我們自己的生活空間，不會使用到雙連綠地；
我們終其一生，幾乎不會感染HIV。

但我們還是花了很多時間與精力，去幫助弱勢者發聲。

我們不會因為幫助他們、而獲得任何利益，我們甚至不會出現在感謝名單上。

而我們（包括Emmy Hu）還是運用了自己的影響力，發文力挺、號召大家一起支持。

這個社會上，掌握話語權的人，幾乎都只想到自己，而沒有顧慮到他人的需要，尤其是照顧弱小。

自私自利的人，行為準則是「千萬不要燃燒自己照亮別人」。

而我們比較像是德蕾莎修女生前所說的：「愛，是在別人的需要上看見自己的責任。」
Mother Teresa said,
"Love is in the needs of others to see their own responsibility."

我一直在向主禱告。

《主禱文》
我們在諸天之上的父，
願你的名被尊為聖，願你的國來臨，願你的旨意行在地上，如同行在天上。

我們日用的食物，今日賜給我們；
免我們的債，如同我們免了欠我們債的人；
不叫我們陷入試誘，救我們脫離那惡者。

因為國度、能力、榮耀，都是你的，直到永遠。
阿們。

新約聖經
馬太福音第六章 9～13節

JANGAN IZINKAN IBU LAHIRKAN TUANNYA

Masa awal aku kahwin dengan isteri aku, aku dapat pakej 4 orang anak. Alhamdulillah. Yang mana 2 daripada 4 ni istimewa sikit. Dua-dua aspergers. Sorang ADD sorang lagi ADHD. Paling mencabar sekali tau tak apa? Anak-anak ni sebelum kehadiran aku, diorang ni di manjakan betul. Cukup manja! Semua nak, dapat. Tak boleh kena tegur, mesti menaangis dan membentak. 3 lelaki, sorang perempuan. Masa tu umur yang sulung 14 tahun. Yang second 12 tahun...
Continue ReadingDON ' T ALLOW MOTHER TO BORN HER MASTER

When I married my wife, I got a package of 4 children. Thank God. Which 2 of the 4 is a little special. Both aspergers. Another ADD another ADHD. It's most challenging to know it's okay? These kids before my presence, they are being pampered right. Pretty spoiled! All want, got it. Can't be told, must cry and snap. 3 men, a woman. At that time the eldest was 14 years old. The second 12 years old. Third 9 years old. Fourth of 6 years old girl.

First time entering the family, I've had a meeting done. With gangster style, long hair braids. I'm doing a LIVE FB meeting with children. In the meeting, I just entered the family, so follow my rules. I don't follow their rules.

At the beginning, many people who are nearest have started tripping and spreading stories, not saying that I will hit the kids. The swing bowl is right who reads people from this person's use.

Remember the early marriage, my wife always reminds me of me. If these kids promise anything they need to be fulfilled, they will cry badly and scream. Hard to persuade. Sometimes I want to break my breath and cry. The other one is ADHD if he cries, he can't be angry, he has to say it carefully. Because later he will be raging and coming hyper. The one who added is his own attitude. It's just his problem that he doesn't take the port. The eldest is the most pamper. Ask for whatever the confirmation gets. After that it's urgent to work.

I really don't feel like I'm suitable at all. What should I do? Wash his mother first. My wife cried when she washed her first. I said it's simple. I don't want my son to grow up to die and get everything he wants to wear. Nothing, tomorrow won't be given, he rebel like going crazy.

Everything that my wife says can't do, I prove it to my wife, everything that she thinks is wrong. I made it. I didn't see anyone doing what my wife said. I just tried to bring MCD, then I parked at the Tomyam shop. Look at all the faces that are slammed. But no one is crying.

That's where it all started. Until one part I saw my wife still wrongly. I said it's simple.

′′ Want something big, need a big sacrifice. If you maintain like this, it's too wrong that you have to follow all your child's wishes, you're afraid to say NO and then you're crying and tired of your brother Trust me. Just like this, you'll lose your brother. Choose. ′′ ′′

Hah my wife was shaking at that time.

Yes, it's not easy to fight the mother's instinct. I really understand. But have to remember, you want to be sad until when you just want to entertain the extreme motherhood instincts? How do you want your child to grow up? What's he doing today, he's already big tomorrow. You're poor, he asks for something you can't fulfill. You think he got it? That's the wrong time he just said this sentence.

′′ Why is my mom not like someone else's mom. It's okay. I am not important ′′

Heart was shaking at that time. He didn't tell me 100 times, once didn't let him release such a painful sentence?

I'm nothing, kids like this even more men, have to grow up to be men. Not a bapok, not a Kpop. Man. The world will come far more evil. Responsibility is far bigger. It is compulsory to grow up to be a man. I repeat.

MEN.

That's when my wife slowly became a mad mother. Kah kah kah. The kids were shocked at that time. Suddenly mom is good at screaming? Suddenly mom is good at tunjal head? Suddenly mom is good at slapping? Suddenly mom dares to throw her phone against the wall?

Most power if a child I say near her mother,

′′ Mom doesn't love me, I hate mom.."

If my wife used to hear this verse, she will feel sinful and crying. Now you know what my wife answer?

′′ Once you hate me, 100 times I hate you.."

Stunned again child. Feels like the tactical of playing sentiment is not going to be. Continue to continue doing homework.

After that the scene of running away from the middle of the night, haa my wife is already cuak. Look for me to tell my child to run home. Cleaning up the bag. If you're as a mother, are you rocking? 10-year-olds when they were running home. Other siblings are busy trying not to run away, they insist on running.

I told my wife I'm happy je.

′′ Do not persuade. Just ask him to run the house faster. Go help her pack the bag. Do not worry. I used to threaten my mother like this when I was small. When my mother is stupid, I stay outside for a while and then I will go home because it's scary outside the dark.. if you persuade, don't run away, believe Tomorrow he's busy threatening to run again."

My wife went down and asked her to leave her house faster. This kid won't go out after opening the door. Look at the dark outside. He immediately opened the saji headscarf, making him hungry. It's so hard to look at it.

Want to turn into a Lion, it looks evil. Many will talk about this. You say you don't love your children. If this part is not strong, it will be stupid to be eaten by these words. But you have to believe one thing. This mother and father knows her child better than all of you. He knows so much. Know which limit he can make or not. We who watch from outside don't pretend to teach other people's children, teach our own children first to let go. Look at our children today he appreciate us how.

I was worst being criticized at that time.

He said since my wife married me, my wife's attitude has changed. Getting harder. Fierce with the kids. And many more lah. I'm lazy to take a port. The one who speaks is a woman who has never tasted anything. Work is great. So bored listening to it. But I'm cooking so much, it's normal that the sound of this person's confirmation since childhood has never lived hard, the child and the one that is like diva is usually the same. Just deaf the ear. Focus on the mission for the good of the child to come.

After 3 years, I recently had a meeting with all my children. I ask, did you notice that mom used to be different from now?

All bobbing. Getting more ferocious and crazy people say.

I'm so happy to hear. Let go of that I said.

′′ Try all of you to look back at this day. What's the difference? Neno 8 years old can be brushed by school clothes. Already able to wipe Ayra out. Luth 10 years can wash everyone's dishes. Hoze is the most improvement. From my own world today, you are the most helping to work in your house. 13 years old, washing clothes, hanging clothes, sleeping ayraa, bathing ayraa. And many more. Anish, you are the eldest brother. Thank God. No more pushy. See you already understand the reality of being a brother. Every morning sitting in the kitchen helping mom cook.. that's okay. Proud for a while Dedi. Dedi is nothing, you ask Dedi's siblings if they are rude to his mother, what happens to them. Must eat Dedi's feet. You become a son, you have to be a protector to your mother. Don't make it a slave mother."

All sighs. I'm connecting again.

′′ Do you know why this Seremban house Dedi doesn't install air conditioner near Indeed Dedi doesn't let mom install air conditioner. Let me sleep hot. Learning how to use a fan. Dedi used to grow up but never sleeps in air conditioner, thank God I grew up healthy. Dedi wants anything can't just get like that. So men have to learn how to feel hard. So that tomorrow, you will learn to be grateful. I will remember your parents when they are happy. You'll be close to siblings, tomorrow this is what you'll laugh back when you tell the story. Trust me. All of these are the sweetest memories. Mother and father don't know when will die. Maybe tomorrow we die, at least Anish can take care of the younger siblings."

Everyone was laughing at that time. My eldest child will interrupt in a while.

′′ Dedi, but honestly Anish likes the current mother from mother before. Even though it's fierce, but it's true when I remember it again. All of us are good at all. I just noticed that someone else is 8 years old but doesn't even know how to take care of the baby who is a year old and shower and defecate. Luth has changed a lot. No more crying. Hardworking. Hoze has changed a lot of crazy. Playing with the phone. There's only one problem, when you have a relative, you can come, don't sit in the Just sit down once. Anyway, I swear, Anish loves the mother who was now from the old times. Even though the current mother is crazy saiko! Haha. Mom, you are Queen Of My Heart! Mother is crazy, before Anish didn't understand a lot. When Anish sees mom struggle, Anish becomes a pity. Just saw all the sacrifices of the mother for all of us."

Others bobbing heads agree and laugh with what brother anish he said.

All impressed when I remember back. Until neno's turn, she keeps crying. She really apologizes near her mom.

The most powerful, they are siblings when their aunt wants to ask them to come out. Each one has completed the job of who managed his / her sister's clothes this year, who will beat his / her younger sibling's pampers, who will manage his / her sister's pampers. All of them think for themselves. Talk to each other and manage the equipment of his little brother who is a year old. No need to have a mother with her dedi.

Power, isn't it? Two Aspergers, an ordinary person. The eldest has entered MRSM. It means that the number two child of ADD is taking over.

Even when I'm going back to hometown, my wife just gave me an order. They all clean up their own bags. My wife doesn't even mix a single dust. My wife looks like a big boss today. All homeworks are managed by the child. My wife's duty is to cook. Wash clothes, dry clothes, wash dishes, wash toilets, throw away garbage, shower ayra for a year, all the kids who manage it.

If I don't move, I won't let my wife shout out to other children. But mad at the eldest child. Let the eldest child be stressed. Whatever happened to the younger siblings, I told her mother to kill her eldest child. So when the younger siblings aren't working, fighting, the eldest brother already knows that he needs to be tiaw with his mother later. Didn't say much, he just settled his younger siblings. That's it brother!

Thank God. The story is only one. Our children, we know each other. There's a part of being fierce, there's a part that needs to be There's a part that can laugh. This mother has one veto power, but many are afraid to use it because she is not in other s' language and is so afraid that her child will hate It doesn't mean anything! It's boring to entertain the sentiment of pity that is extreme. You used to be your mother who hit your face, do you hate your mother to big? Nothing. We're fierce because we just want to educate. Not fierce all the time. More than firm. When you see your child hardworking, listen to it, there's a day that will give you a surprise Chocolate or what? Taking a walk to the park. Time with family has to be there.

If you're too spoiled, you can make your child become responsible and the person who will defend your family, I think that the Malay soldiers won't even be training hard as hard as possible. It's better for them to just pray for all the new soldiers. What do you want, everything is given. Wake up late, swipe your hair and then kiss your forehead. Even eating time is delicious. Sleeping at night comfortably, installing air conditioner. Put on the wifi.

What was it?

Before you want to say this person, ask ourselves first. Our 7-year-old child eats, is he good at washing his own dishes? Do you know how to follow your time schedule? Can you brush your own school clothes?

If you're not good at anything, don't make me feel bad about the way other father's mother educate someone's child.

The hardest episode in educating children at this age. Believe me, this will all be a longing for the kids when they leave the house later. And this also makes them siblings get closer.

Patience, victory day is coming! Early sacrifice is the most important. Fight all the wrong feelings that always play in the soul. Only one thing you have to remember, as long as you don't fight with religion. Mom is never wrong! Angry, fierce lah. Do not worry. Continue to educate our ways. Don't forget the power of Veto!

Eh forgot, waimah is a special child. What the doctor said put number two. Accompanying kids like normal kids before but there's a limit. Don't teach him to be a special child since you were young. We know our children again, right? Because I always believe, crazy people when we clap their hands twice when they want to take our food, the third time they will understand and won't take it anymore. That's the crazy person. So, Don't let the child know he's special. Don't disturb her brain. Just entertaining the same thing.

Everyone is like that. If he feels like there are advantages, there is someone who defends more, he will start to get a chance. Can't believe it? You try to pamper your child crazy. Let go of the try in front of you, someone tease him less, you see how he has torn to tears later he will get your attention.

Anyway..

Only one thing I'm still failing. Failed to change their name call among siblings. No call Along, Angah, Bangde. I feel strongly, calling this name also has a certain advantage to put the difference between the younger brother and brother. There is a family aura.

Don't forget, Father's role in psychology is important to be crazy. Because with this mother, no matter how fierce it is, the child is brave to fight. Dad must be good at playing roles. No need to touch, you need to know when you want to have a high voice. When you want to call your child, sit down and talk about others.

Become a child idol.

Trust me, step child and biological child two things that are impossible. Because the power of VETO only exists in biological children. This step child has a risk that you need to face. What happened to them, people will say that you don't love them because it's not your biological child. Painful and sad that sentence is for me. Allah knows how I love them.

I wrote it,
Mr Amir Lake

P / s: In the past my wife was criticized by the Aspie group when my wife said she educated her aspie's child in the way she was a little firm. All sorts of people are teasing, he said that this aspie child will take revenge and kill him. Have to be teased every day. Poor. My wife doesn't agree with my actions early because she holds the doctor's order. Today, I'm asking my child aspie. Tomorrow if mom gets disturbed by someone else in front of you what will you do? What did he answer? I'll hit him enough! And I asked my wife, how about the person who teased her child? He said his child is under control but sometimes he's raging badly until he's about to breath. At the same time today my child aspie is good at cooking, can do all homework and love his siblings so much.

Mr. Amir Lake creditTranslated