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

日程表上出現了一個推完又推推完再推的會議，跟 daily 的工作完全無關，是一個 start up 的 founder 想向我推介他的 business idea。

推無可推，為了給一個 mutual friend 面子，都終於見了這個 founder。那個下午，是很多香港人心情都很沉重的一天。

至於我，基於某些原因，除了 personally 心情沉重，professionally 心情也沉重，而其實無論是乜柒 -ly 物柒 -ly 多方面的心情都非常沉重。(大概是骨牌效應，「沉重」開有條路。)

想像一下，在這樣的心情之下，應酬一個不想應酬的會議，對這個 founder 是多麼的不公平，but that is life。

兩點鐘開始見，開頭只是打算給他三十分鐘。

最後我給了他很多個三十分鐘。

其實他的 business idea 是完全不吸引的，講白一點 it just sucks，但這個 business idea 背後的信念，which is 一句很簡單的口號，卻對我起了很實在很徹底很戲劇化的治療作用。

「每天為別人做一件好事，每天為世界添一筆色彩。」

投訴過、埋怨過、憎恨過便會知道，負能量除了透支你的身心，便沒有其他效果了。

作為有能力的人，除了氣餒和激動，是否沒有其他可以做呢？

有位富豪最近問我，「我可以為現在的香港做些什麼？」

我告訴了他一個鑽石山麥記的奇遇。

有一天我在鑽石山荷里活廣場的麥記排隊買汽水，前面有一對母子，那個小朋友問母親知不知道「南港島綫」最後一個站是什麼站。母親說「你話畀我聽啦」，小朋友說「海怡半島呀！」

我站在後面，忍不住對小朋友說了句，咁叻嘅你，今年幾多歲呀；佢奸奸哋樣咁答我「四歲」，母親踢爆佢「你有排都未四歲」。

小朋友尷尬笑一笑，便繼續問母親一連串問題。

「點解南港島綫得咁少站嘅？」阿媽冇答。

「點解冇北港島綫嘅？」阿媽冇答。

「點解個島字咁似個鳥字嘅？」阿媽冇答。

說到這裏，我停一停，富豪問，「講完嗱？」

講完喇。

「即係點？」富豪問。

大哥，如果嗰個小朋友真係未夠四歲，佢肯定係一個天才。

「咁又點？」富豪再問。

有一個研究報告曾經追蹤不知多少萬個資優生，目的是要看看這些資優生五十年後的社會地位怎樣。結果有一成人「擔當了社會的重要位置」，有一大部分人「尚算不錯」，有一成人的「情況非常不濟」。

重要位置和非常不濟之間，出現了什麼狀況？哪有什麼狀況，重要位置那些都是來自富裕人家，非常不濟那些則來自最草根的階層。

看到當中的悲哀嗎？本身有潛能，原來還得靠「資源」才能發揮自己的小宇宙，著名作家 Malcom Gladwell 在 Outliers 這本書裏面所說的 capitalization 就是這個道理。

抽離少少、看闊少少、易地而處少少，放低自己少少，其實我們可以做到的事情好多。

「你見到個小朋友，最後都幫唔到啲咩。」

我自己係幫唔到啲咩，所以我留低咗我張卡片畀個阿媽，話有個富豪會願意付出所有資源畀你嘅小朋友去接受最好嘅教育。

富豪先是呆一呆，後來想一想說：「都幾有意思。」

最後那位媽媽沒有打電話來，但我做了該做的了。

所謂「盡做」，除了一腔熱血屌這星屌那星之外，其實還有更多的演繹方法。

Farewell to my counterpart and friend, Consul General of Singapore to Hong Kong, Ms Foo Teow Lee. It was a great pleasure getting to know Teow Lee and learning from her insight over the past four years. Like what the photographs captured by Marjorie Doggett and Lee Fook Chee have shown, Hong Kong and Singapore have many elements that can complement each other and are great partners over the years. With our increased mutual understanding, I am confident Hong Kong 🇭🇰- Singapore 🇸🇬 ties will get even stronger and continue to thrive and prosper.

Singapore Consulate-General in Hong Kong
#hongkong #singapore

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”

13.06.21

2 years today @sirhanwahab popped back into my life after the last time I saw him was way back when we were in secondary school. While accompanying a mutual friend to my place for my little Raya do, on the 13th of June 2019 he sent me a DM on @instagram and as fate would have it, here we are sitting on our sofa in our home here in Dubai looking at our beautiful wedding album by @glamorouscapture ??

The album was ready over a year ago but due to the pandemic we weren’t able to return home to Malaysia as initially planned but when I recently did get the chance earlier this year, this was one of the items I decided to bring back especially because I wanted to share the first time of unboxing it with Sirhan naturally.

Thank you @i.am.muz of @glamorouscapture for the magnificent pre-wedding photographs that were shot at #MemorialTunkuAbdulRahman and of course the fantastic pictures taken during the Khatam Quran as well as the Nikah ceremony.

“Photography is a way of feeling, of touching, of loving. What you have caught on film is captured forever… It remembers little things, long after you have forgotten everything.”
— Aaron Siskind

#ADashOfSash❤️
#CommittedToTheCelopians
#DiaryOfADevotedDomesticatedDabawi
#TheElusiveFairytaleOfTheHalfBloodPrincessSayang

在韓國開學後 每天都很期待韓文課
因為教的韓文都非常實用 感覺在韓國常常會聽得到
短短韓文課開始一個星期
就學習了韓式中式數字 時間 日期 國家 地方 在做什麼
很想快點可以用韓文發掘更多美好的事物
加油努力???

還有就是我買了一個氣炸鍋給自己 49900won 350hkd
原本很想買焗爐 但上網做功課 發現氣炸鍋用的油更小
而且也能當焗爐 然後不知為什麼韓國的焗爐比氣炸鍋貴
在韓國食譜APP發現 韓國人用氣炸鍋做料理的食譜超多xDD

有事沒事在播的Louise Hay’s Affirmations
https://youtu.be/lz16YqpWkz4

我最近喜歡的Meditation都放在這裡??
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZtiymGKsXlY9dgdlDE-2wHze

Spotify Chill Playlist
https://open.spotify.com/playlist/3LFIBdP7eZXJKqf3guepZ1?si=Y7L33LVRSQqd92JYontLFA

先放在這裡 可能你會感興趣xD
Blender
http://global.m.11st.co.kr/MW/Product/productBasicInfo.tmall?prdNo=2314673168

可以重用的口罩
IG @pokeguidehk
https://www.pokeguide.com/

Subscribe： https://goo.gl/srSS92

#韓國 #Korea
Stay Home #WithMe

Related Videos:
韓國VLOG | 一日兩餐 | 留學首爾獨居日常 | 小蒼蘭和咖啡的幸福 | 一人食治癒生活記錄 | #101
https://youtu.be/0hVjehdKBXw

晚餐Vlog 韓國上班族的晚餐日常 白醬義大利麵、韓式炒豬肉、草莓拿鐵 l Cher is chercher
https://youtu.be/poCzUSxxXjo

vlog | 개강한 복학생의 자취로그?(통삼겹구이와 양파구이/월남쌈/달걀만두/치즈볼/닭칼국수/미역국/블루베리바나나) | 지현꿍
https://youtu.be/-htHifTgQTc

About This Channel：
A healthy mind and body can change one from being depressed to joyful and content. Hope my videos can bring a sense of joy and wellness to everyone. And take the sadness away on bad days and be grateful for the happiness on good days. ??

健康心靈+ 健康身體 = 容易憂鬱也變容易快樂滿足
希望我的影片和食譜能為大家帶來健康快樂的身心
在抑鬱時舒壓 在快樂時感恩?
希望看完影片的你像minions一樣開心??

Related Playlists:
【一個人在韓國生活 Life in Korea??】
2020年2月10日 因為怕疫情持續爆發 所以孤身一人提早到韓國 順便找房子
展開為期一年夢寐以求在首爾學韓文還有工作假期(能找到的話)的生活
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZthaqNdOIiC7giDcSmTs_y7K

【Daily日常?】Sandy Bello
平凡的一天♡
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZthhjle1VPfd48VwDRpuJkKX&feature=share

【Morning Vlog ☀️】Sandy Bello
記錄頹廢也好高效也好如何展開每一天♡
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZtjHjEKC0eZ0bzvVAHgWmaSJ

【3 Meals A Day一日三餐 ?】Sandy Bello
想認真煮飯吃飯時一餐的料理♡
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZtgcK8Q5FHETseZCX7no4osR&feature=share

【Random Vlog?】Sandy Bello
隨心隨意記下不想忘記的畫面♡
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZthKDS6-p1gYtdL_rZebQ4WM&feature=share

【Food Vlog 食食食 ?】Sandy Bello
瘋狂吃吃吃的日記！食食食的瞬間♡
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZthM9APzQs97s6gyHsdPeA2l&feature=share

【Diet 減肥健康 ?】Sandy Bello
中學因減肥有過很長時間的情緒病 現在不敢苛刻對自己了 所以內容比較簡單不地獄♡
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZti8yRoqa3N8OxNTcINhVFAP&feature=share

【Hike 行山?】Sandy Bello
親親大自然 放下內心的廢氣♡
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZtj1jPE5qsIA2hrt9u-aGXtL&feature=share

【3 Meals A Day一日三餐 ?】Sandy Bello
想認真煮飯吃飯時一餐的料理♡
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZtgcK8Q5FHETseZCX7no4osR&feature=share

Cameras：
Canon G7Xll - https://amzn.to/2stt3Uy
Canon M6 - https://amzn.to/2PlfqzL
Osmo Pocket - https://amzn.to/2YRcuy2
Iphone 11 - https://amzn.to/35sBbTW

♥Find Sandy here♥ 
・facebook ：https://goo.gl/0jn5pR
・Instagram：http://goo.gl/W13b93
・e-mail：sandybellotv@gmail.com

Music Credit：
So Long - Norma Rockwell
Feeling’s Not Mutual - Single Friend
Timeless - Lauren Duski
Two of Us - Saidbysed
「Kevin MacLeod」創作的「Midday Dance」獲得「Creative Commons Attribution」的授權使用 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
來源：http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/index.html?isrc=USUAN1100160
演出者：http://incompetech.com/

(Most of the Music come from Soundcloud／Youtube?!!)

在韓國自我隔離閉關第八天 快要自言自語上演周星馳xDD
雖然不能很理想地享受在韓國的生活
但多了時間探索韓國的網購和韓國的家
也是在韓國另一番新體驗 而且機會真的不常有 哈哈
也省了不少在韓國外出用餐和娛樂的開支
不夠下個禮拜我就要開始外出上學了
還要去銀行交屋租等等 很害怕可是也很期待
很矛盾xDD 人生可能就是這樣xDD

好用的學韓文網頁?
https://www.memrise.com/home/#

Subscribe： https://goo.gl/srSS92

#韓國 #韓國生活 #韓國vlog

Related Videos:
韓國VLOG | 疫情爆發前的日常 | 發覺不對提前屯糧 | 獨居留學做飯 | 治癒料理日常 | #97
https://youtu.be/ptyIuvcj_Kw

韓國Vlog??明洞到底為什麼那麼多人喜歡去？명동｜劉力穎Liying Liu
https://youtu.be/xq2hnI25UyE

韓國VLOG | 10月的開始 | 一個人的留學日常 | 一人食 | 獨居治癒日常 | #85
https://youtu.be/Fr9wZB_7rVo

About This Channel：
A healthy mind and body can change one from being depressed to joyful and content. Hope my videos can bring a sense of joy and wellness to everyone. And take the sadness away on bad days and be grateful for the happiness on good days. ??

健康心靈+ 健康身體 = 容易憂鬱也變容易快樂滿足
希望我的影片和食譜能為大家帶來健康快樂的身心
在抑鬱時舒壓 在快樂時感恩?
希望看完影片的你像minions一樣開心??

Related Playlists:
【一個人在韓國生活 Life in Korea??】
2020年2月10日 因為怕疫情持續爆發 所以孤身一人提早到韓國 順便找房子
展開為期一年夢寐以求在首爾學韓文還有工作假期(能找到的話)的生活
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZthaqNdOIiC7giDcSmTs_y7K

【Daily日常?】Sandy Bello
平凡的一天♡
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZthhjle1VPfd48VwDRpuJkKX&feature=share

【Morning Vlog ☀️】Sandy Bello
記錄頹廢也好高效也好如何展開每一天♡
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZtjHjEKC0eZ0bzvVAHgWmaSJ

【3 Meals A Day一日三餐 ?】Sandy Bello
想認真煮飯吃飯時一餐的料理♡
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZtgcK8Q5FHETseZCX7no4osR&feature=share

【Random Vlog?】Sandy Bello
隨心隨意記下不想忘記的畫面♡
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZthKDS6-p1gYtdL_rZebQ4WM&feature=share

【Food Vlog 食食食 ?】Sandy Bello
瘋狂吃吃吃的日記！食食食的瞬間♡
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZthM9APzQs97s6gyHsdPeA2l&feature=share

【Diet 減肥健康 ?】Sandy Bello
中學因減肥有過很長時間的情緒病 現在不敢苛刻對自己了 所以內容比較簡單不地獄♡
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZti8yRoqa3N8OxNTcINhVFAP&feature=share

【Hike 行山?】Sandy Bello
親親大自然 放下內心的廢氣♡
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZtj1jPE5qsIA2hrt9u-aGXtL&feature=share

【3 Meals A Day一日三餐 ?】Sandy Bello
想認真煮飯吃飯時一餐的料理♡
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OhHhm1DZtgcK8Q5FHETseZCX7no4osR&feature=share

Cameras：
Canon G7Xll - https://amzn.to/2stt3Uy
Canon M6 - https://amzn.to/2PlfqzL
Osmo Pocket - https://amzn.to/2YRcuy2
Iphone 11 - https://amzn.to/35sBbTW

♥Find Sandy here♥ 
・facebook ：https://goo.gl/0jn5pR
・Instagram：http://goo.gl/W13b93
・e-mail：sandybellotv@gmail.com

Music Credit：
Feeling’s Not Mutual - Single Friend
Theme for a One Handed Piano Concerto - Sir Cubworth
Invisible Beauty - Aakash Gandhi
(Most of the Music come from Soundcloud／Youtube?!!)