關於 you must be the change you want to see in the world ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【國立臺灣大學109學年度畢業典禮 致詞代表 政治學系林語萱】
Student Address, National Taiwan University Commencement 2021
Yu-Hsuan Lin from the Department of Political Science

.
校長、師長、家長，和在螢幕前難以置信這就是我們的畢典，卻也真實面對的所有臺大畢業生，大家好，我是政治學系四年級的林語萱。

比起說著我們會鵬程萬里、前程似錦，今天，我更想邀請各位一同擔任NTU Sweety Course的貢獻者，整理出綜合過去四年，且能帶著走出校園的三個成長學分：勇氣、彈性和自己。

大二上，我休了學，在零下三十幾度的低溫、強颱般的逆風和看不見天際線的白色大地中，越野滑雪了半個多月，只為了跟著亞洲第一支南極長征隊伍，在世界的盡頭，找到那個能夠超越極限的自己。參與這個計畫，或許是大多人眼中的不正常，然而它卻成為了我人生中最有收穫的選擇之一。相信在臺大這個充滿可能性的校園裡，許多人心中，也有這麼一個想征服的南極，它可能不怎麼正常，也不怎麼容易，但別忘了帶著勇氣這個學分去做、去闖你認爲是對的事物。

再來，還有個學分，叫做彈性。還記得那些腳踏車被水源阿伯給拖吊，只好改成走路或騎Ubike2.0的日常嗎？我們在一次又一次的校內小組合作、校外的家教實習中，反覆上著適應不同情況的實驗課，而疫情又加重了它的loading，原本以為上一屆已經夠慘，沒想到這一屆竟然還更糟的情況下，我們滾動式的調整上課的樣貌，努力用NTU Cool的1.5倍速上課。在唯一不變就是變的這個世間常態中，臺大教會了我們保持彈性的生存之道。

最後，最最重要的學分，是我們自己，沒錯，就是在螢幕前的每一個你你你。從大一忙碌於轉系和雙主修的菜鳥，變成焦慮著左右張望他人下一步的大四老人，我們總汲汲營營的害怕落後別人，擔心無法成為自己心中想成為的樣子，但當回過頭，騎過幾千次椰林大道後的我們，其實早已不是從前那個自己了。所以未來，當外界的環境，督促和逼迫著我們精益求精，好還要更好時，記得回到內心，聽聽它的聲音，由它來告訴我們：你不必成為誰，你只需要相信自己。

除了勇氣、彈性和自己這三個學分外，還有一張加簽單也別忘記，是一路陪伴我們的家人和師長，一個人的任性，需要很多人的愛才能夠成全，謝謝你們在成長路上的陪伴和鼓勵，我們才能夠放肆的任性。

最後的最後，我想起了一戰後的西班牙大流感，它帶走的生命比戰爭還多，但在時間洪流下也終究有結束的一天。誰知道一百多年後的今天，我們也被迫參與了歷史的進程。也許未來看似困難重重，但卡繆在瘟疫裡提醒了我們：「惟有甘願在困難的堅實土壤中去生根立足，才能夠獲得果實。」今天後的明日，我們將在不同的土壤中勇敢挑戰、彈性應對和相信自己，且帶著滿滿的愛去生根立足，為自己、為我們所身處的社會，產出最甜美的果實。準備好了嗎？讓我們一起推動歷史的進程吧！臺大109屆的畢業生們，畢業快樂，或許現在的我們無法面對面相聚，but I’ll see you down the road！謝謝大家。

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

.
President Kuan, respected faculty, honored guests and family, and to my fellow NTU graduates who would never have imagined our commencement hosted in this way but still making the best of it, good morning. I am YU-HSUAN LIN, from Department of Political Science.

Rather than wishing the best and the brightest futures to us all, today, I want to urge each and every one of you to join in and contribute to NTU Sweety Course, and put together three amongst the most important credits from these past four years. They are courage, elasticity, and ourselves.

I took a temporary leave in my sophomore year. At minus 30 degrees Celsius, with howling headwinds and blizzards all over the sky, I did cross-country skiing for more than half a month, to challenge myself beyond the limit at the very end of the world. My Antarctic venture may seem absurd to many, but it was one of the most rewarding things I’ve ever done in my life. At NTU, a campus of endless possibilities, we all have a South Pole in our hearts, an undoubtedly challenging and perhaps laughable goal we yearn to achieve. But do not forget the credit of courage we have gained from these past years, and choose whatever it is that you believe is right.

The next credit, is adaptability. Do you remember the days when our bikes being towed and having to walk or take Ubike 2.0 to class? We learned to adapt through group projects in the classes and private tutoring off-campus, and the ongoing pandemic has added extra loading to our everyday challenges. We thought the previous year was bad, but this year is even worse. We adjust the way we took courses on a rolling basis, trying to catch up from NTU COOL at 1.5x speed. The only thing that doesn't change is change itself. NTU taught us how to adapt to survive.

Last but not least, and arguably the most important credit, is ourselves. That’s right, It’s each and every one of you behind the screens. From a first-year newbie busy planning your double major or transfer, to a senior wandering around anxiously as our peers taking next steps, we work hard painstakingly in fear of falling behind of other, and wonder if we can become the person we want to be. But looking back, after countless rides along the Royal Palm Boulevard, our old selves have already long gone. So, in the future, when the outside world is constantly pushing us to make the best even better and to reach beyond limits, remember to listen to that little voice inside of you. Listen to it as it tells you, there isn’t a certain or definite role you must fulfill, all you need is to have faith in yourself.

Besides the three credits I just mentioned, don’t forget the Petition for Adding Course: our families and professors who accompanied us along our journeys. It requires loves from many to accomplish caprice of one. Thank you for your company and encouragement along the way to allow us to be self-willed boldly.

Lastly, the Spanish flu outbreak after WWI came to my mind recently. It took even more lives than the battle fields. However, it too, eventually ended as time went by. Who knew that after a hundred years, we would also be a part of a similar history? It seems that adversities are awaiting us, but Albert Camus had already reminded us in La Peste “Like wandering shadows that could have acquired substance only by consenting to root themselves in the solid earth of their distress.” When tomorrow comes, in different corners on the Earth, we shall challenge, respond adaptively, and believe in ourselves. With each step that we take, we take with all the love there is within us. Let us contribute to ourselves and to our society, and may our efforts bear the sweetest fruits. Are you ready? Let’s push history forward! Hats off to all NTU graduates of 2021! Although we are unable to celebrate face to face now, I’ll see you down the road! Thank you all!

.
詳見：
https://www.facebook.com/NTUCommencement/posts/2718181071805650

.
#臺灣大學 #畢業典禮 #NTUCommencement2021 #學生致詞代表 #臺大政治學系 #林語萱

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”

(Scroll down for english version)

「歷史將宣判我們無罪！」
李卓人8.31案法庭陳情書

法官閣下，我在此認罪，但我在捍衛人民和平遊行和集會自由上，並沒有做錯任何事。我相信歷史將會宣判我們無罪。在此請讓我向你講述更多我的背景，那樣你就能更理解我為何要為了香港的未來，與人民共同走上街頭。

#新時代由政治犯開創

作為一名基督徒，我在復活節期間聽讀經員閱讀聖經，提醒了我，耶穌為世人犧牲，被釘上十字架，使罪人與神和解。從被捕到被控到被彼拉多（Pilate）判死刑，祂也是一名政治犯，沒有犯罪，但因為服務窮人和傳福音，而威脅到猶太統治階層。

縱觀人類歷史文明，我們現在享有的權利，也是由一眾政治犯，諸如甘地、馬丁路德金和納爾遜·曼德拉所開創的。在80年代，我是「香港反種族隔離運動」的主席，我一直將納爾遜·曼德拉在1963年遭審判所言銘記於心。他說：「願意為我的理想而犧牲自己生命。」他的理想是爭取南非黑人的平權，然後就被判刑27年。我為他在1994年當選南非總統而感到興奮，他給予了全世界受壓逼的人民希望，讓他們知道透過堅持不懈的鬥爭，可以達致公義。

#曼德拉給我的啟發

我花了一些時間去講曼德拉帶給我的啟發，因為我是從1978年起投身到勞工權益和民主運動的。我畢生的理想，就是讓基層和被壓逼者勇於發聲和站起來爭取屬於他們的權利。每當那些被壓逼者起來捍衛他們的權利，為尊嚴而抗爭時，我也會受到鼓舞，並得到力量去繼續面對香港正面臨的艱苦奮鬥和挑戰。我曾問自己，沒有抗爭，我的人生將會是如何？這已是我第43年投身於民主運動，法官閣下，你必須明白當我目睹國家權力如何使用武力鎮壓人民，令香港人受傷、受牢獄之苦或是流亡，以及香港民主倒退，人民的權利遭剝奪之時，心裏的痛苦和折磨。我看到我的理想正在崩潰，但即使被黑暗籠罩，也無阻我繼續為理想奮鬥的決心。為了這一理想，我甘願承受任何懲罰。

法官閣下可能會說，法律就是法律，而我好像沒有就八三一案展露出絲毫悔意。我希望法官閣下明白，我是何等重視人民透過言論和集會所彰顯的自由。這是弱勢和受壓逼者尋求公義的唯一路徑。剝奪了這種權利，形同制度對人民施暴。我不願看見香港人活在建基於制度暴力的管治之中。因此，我會竭盡所能，伸張人們有尊嚴及和平遊行去發達意見的權利。

#最壞的尚未來臨
#法庭要睜開眼睛

我十分尊重法官閣下維護法治的熱誠。在此，我希望能引用已故法官Ruth Bader Ginsburg的話：

「法官們會不斷思考和改變，我希望倘若今日法庭有盲點，明日它將會睜開眼。」

我十分敬佩Ginsburg為了性別平權奮鬥一生，成就斐然。她告訴我們，法官應該與時並進，趕上不斷在變遷的時代。在香港，最壞的尚未來臨，我們需要法律界人士去睜開雙眼，觀看人民的苦難，並反思法律在這個時代的立足點，如何隨時代變遷而轉變，以捍衞人民的尊嚴與權利。

2021年4月7日

"History will absolve us"
Submission of Lee Cheuk Yan to the Court

Your Honour, I plead guilty but I’ve done no wrong in affirming the rights of people to peaceful procession and I believe history will absolve us. May I give you more on my background so as your honour can understand why I decided to march with the people for the future of Hong Kong.

As a Christian, during Easter when the scripture was read, I was reminded how Christ went to meet his fate on the cross, sacrificing for mankind to reconcile sinners with God. From His arrest to his prosecution to his death sentencing by Pilate, he was a political prisoner who committed no crime apart from seen to be a threat to the Jewish Hierarchy by serving the poor and oppressed and preaching the good news.

Throughout history of mankind, the rights that humankind now enjoyed were pioneered by political prisoners from Gandhi to Martin Luther King to Nelson Mandela. I was the Chairman of Hong Kong anti apartheid movement back in the 80s and I always remember the determination of Nelson Mandela when he said during his trial back in 1963: “an ideal for which I am prepared to die for.”. His ideal was the equality for black South African and then he spent 27 years in jail. I was thrilled that in 1994, he was elected President of South Africa, giving hope to oppressed all over the world that justice can be achieve through the persistent struggle of the people.

I went to length about his inspiration to me personally because I started my activism starting 1978 for labour rights and democracy. My lifetime ideal is the empowerment of the poor and oppressed to speak out, to rise up for their rights. Whenever the oppressed assert their rights to fight for their dignity, I feel myself also empowered and inspired to continue the difficult struggle and challenges facing Hong Kong. I asked myself, what is my life without the struggle. The struggle is my life, I cannot imagine my life without it. It had been forty three years of struggle for me and your Honour must understand my deep felt pain and sufferings to see how the State Power had been using brute force against the people and the sacrifices of so many Hongkongers who were injured, jailed or exiled, also to witness the deprivation of the basic rights of the people and the regression in democracy. I saw my ideal crumbling but I will continue the struggle even though darkness is surrounding us. It is an ideal for which I am prepared for any sanction.

Your Honour may say the law is the law, I seems not show any remorse in breaching law in this trial for August 31st. I hope Your Honour understand the utmost importance I put on the rights to freedom of expression through speech or assembly. This is the only avenue the weak and oppressed can have to right the wrongs on them. If deprived, I will call this systemic violence on the people and I do not want to see Hong Kong rule on the basis of such systemic violence. Therefore I would do my utmost to affirm the rights of people to a dignified and peaceful procession to express themselves.

Your Honour must be passionate about upholding the law and I respect your ideal. I hope I can quote from the late Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

“Justices continue to think and can change. I am ever hopeful that if the court has a blind spot today, its eye will be open tomorrow”

I was very impressed with her passion for gender equality and how she fought her whole life for gender equality and was able to achieve so much. Her message was time changes and judges should catch up with time. For Hong Kong, the worst may yet to come, and we need the legal profession to open their eyes to the suffering of the people and reflect on which side the law is with and how to changes with time for the advancement of the rights and dignity of the people.

I humbly submit myself to your sentencing and whatever your sentence, I have no regret for standing up for the rights of the people.

7th April, 2021

An 8 year 'Malaysia Anniversary' celebration video on what to expect if you decide to come down to visit us in the tropics.
★ Follow me on INSTAGRAM https://goo.gl/c9ZKgt
★★ Follow me on FACEBOOK https://goo.gl/dyY7S1

DOWNLOAD GRAB CAR LINK: https://invite.grab.co/711061

Welcome back to the Channel and to a brand new video on my TOP 10 THINGS of what to expect when you come to Malaysia.

Couldn't think of a better time to make this video than in the beautiful month of April which just so happens to be my birthday month. And also happens to be the month in which I first moved to Malaysia.

MUSIC
________

Kozoro - Thank You (Via SuicideSheeep)
https://soundcloud.com/kozoromusic
https://www.facebook.com/KozoroMusic
https://twitter.com/KozoroMusic
http://kozoro.bandcamp.com/releases


VIDEO CONTENT
____________

I couldn't have more good things to say about this country. I love living here and I have loved every moment of being here. It was a real struggle to try and condense this video down to just 10 things because there is so much about Malaysia that I would love to share.

But I WAS able to condense them so here are:
10 things to expect when you come to Malaysia.

1. THE TROPICAL WEATHER
I think it's safe to assume that Malaysia, being situated just shy of the equator, is very much a hot country. And not only that, its humid! Malaysian mornings are usually sunny, and the afternoons over-cast and rainy. I must say though, I prefer rainy season. Its so much more exciting.

2. UNIQUE CUISINE
Because Malaysia has such a mixing pot of different cultures and nationalities and such a rich heritage, the food that has emerged here is out of this world. Malaysia is actually KNOWN for its incredible food selection and I can definitely attest to that. There is a taste for every palette.

3. MULTI-LINGUAL
Malaysia has 4 main languages; Malay, English, Chinese and Tamil, and each of them are just as important as the other. Luckily, if you can speak English you are pretty much in the safe zone.

4. GREAT AFFORDABILITY
The first question that comes to mind when travelling is always... Do I have the money?! Well luckily for you, Malaysia happens to be a very affordable country. Food is very easy to come by and you can pay near to nothing for a very hearty meal. Clothing, (local brands) are abundant and so affordable. My only criticism is the sizes are a little smaller than what I'm used to. hehe.

5. TRANSPORTATION
Due to the way Malaysia has been built, its not very pedestrian friendly. So getting around by car is always the safest option. There is public transport, but its limited. And at the end of the day, taxis, ubers and Grabs are just so much more affordable.

6. RELIGION
Like language, there are 4 main religions in Malaysia. Those religions being: Islam, Buddhism, Christianity and Hinduism. But even with such a mix of religions, there is such a beautiful harmony among the people.

7. CHILLED BACK LIFESTYLE
I blame the weather for how calm and relaxed everyone is in this country. When you live with so much warmth and sunshine as you do here, I really can't blame anyone for taking things in their own time. And as much as it gets on my nerves at time, it just the Malaysian way and I wouldn't want to change it for the world.

8. MOSQUITOES
Having said that, with sunshine and warmth also come uninvited guests. Mosquitoes. Not much to say about it except... BE PREPARED!

9. GREENERY
One things that I commend Malaysia on for an exceptional job is how well they have incorporated nature and infrastructure. I love driving down the roads and seeing greenery with skyscrapers popping out here and there. It add such a lovely element to the city and gives it such a sense of life. Definitely something I hope to see more of in other cities around the world.


10. DIVERSE CULTURE
And lastly, the beautifully diverse culture there is in Malaysia. I know people from all walks of life. From every country in the world. And I've learnt so much about other people, religions, races, cultures, traditions and everything else that comes with diverse companionship.

Malaysia is truly a beautiful home and I am very proud to be able to call it that. :)

Good morning families, supporters, and fellow seniors. Let's stop for a moment and pretend we're all in English class, but without the 400 page novel. The standard for today is going to be the past, present, and future tense.

First up, past tense. I want you all to flashback to life before high school. Things were easy, were they not? We couldn't show off our breakfast, lunch, and dinner on Instagram like we can today. Things were simple. First world problems here and there, but we survived. Let's go back a bit further. See this piece of paper. This is what we are like when we are born. A blank, smooth, and clean slate. Now, fast forward a few years. We enter high school.

Suddenly, assignments pile and continue to pile. Friendships, if we're lucky, continue as acquaintances; if we're unlucky, become broken. Some days, we compare ourselves to what you see now. Our lives start to feel all crumpled up. But to make it through another day, what do we do? We smooth out the edges, and we carry on.

We argue with our parents. We think we're right. We're never right. We meet a boy, or a girl. We think we understand that four letter word, "love." We don't understand. Unless you've successfully found your high school sweetheart, then good for you!

But for the rest of us, we cry. We post depressing statuses on Facebook about being "hash tag forever alone." Some days, we want to rip our hearts out. Like this. But to make it through another day, what do we do? We hold the pieces together, and we carry on.

Fast forward to right now. Welcome to the present. We are here together. After four years. Goodness knows what we can do in one night. Especially the night before finals, the night before that five-page essay is due, the night the word "sleep" becomes non-existent. Or the night you just can't log off League of Legends. So think about it. If that's what we can do in one night, what have we accomplished over this span of four years? Let me answer my own question in two words. A lot.

High school has not only taught us how to solve for "x" or what went on in Shakespeare's mind, but it has also taught us how to do the impossible. We have learned how to procrastinate effectively. We have pulled all-nighters and lived to tell of it. We have asked a crush to prom even though fear of rejection made our knees quiver and the actuality of rejection meant social suicide. Oh, and we survived the end of the world in 2012.

And now we're coming towards the end of this chapter in our lives. Every wrinkle, every edge, every wear and tear on this sheet of paper. They are stories. Lessons. Mistakes. But we have a choice. A choice to continue to look like this, or a choice to do something about it. To put all the pieces back together, into something like this. This is what we can grow to be. This is what we have grown to be. This is what matters.

We are reaching into a new world. Let's refer to this new world as the "future." To make it through another day, what must we do? We must fight. Let me share a quick story. I watched my grandpa fight cancer for a year. Just last month, he lost that fight. I began to question the purpose of fighting my fears, fighting through my struggles, and fighting for what I want.

Have you ever had days where you felt like flying? Perhaps you aced a test. Your crush said yes to your prom proposal. Your parents bought you a new car. But have you ever had days where you felt like falling? You failed a test. You ended a relationship. You disappointed your parents. Sometimes, all the above in one day. Welcome to the life of this paper airplane. It can fly in some moments. But what do we do when it falls? We pick it up, throw it out there, and put it back in the air. That's what we are going to do with our lives.

When we fall, we are going to pick ourselves up. Push ourselves. And carry on. In doing this, we will become better students. Better friends. Better sons and daughters. Better people. And Grandpa, wherever you are, I will become that better person for you.

We have changed, and we will continue to change. But we are not the only ones changing. The world around us is changing. We can talk to our smartphones. Cars are running on electricity. We have laptops that are thinner than my English notebook. We are all moving forward, and life after high school, is just the next big step.

So that wraps up today's lesson on past, present, and future tense. Don't worry, there will be no test tomorrow, or ever again. Just kidding, we'll see tests again in college and in life, but that's another problem for another day. So, to accomplish the goal of today's lesson, remember the words of Albus Dumbledore: "It matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be." Class is dismissed.