這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。(加拿大法院鏈接在此:https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8)
這位法王的桃色事件,我是幾年前才聽到。但,藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞,我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過,也有一些活佛跟她表白。(這不只是她,其他地方我也聽過不少)
這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。
很多時候發生這種事情,信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇,或者說她們也精神病,或者說她們撒謊。
我不排除有這種可能性,但,多過一位,甚至多位出來指證的時候,我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。
大寶法王的桃色事件,最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒,第二位是香港的女出家人,現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。
對大寶法王信徒來說,這一次的比較麻煩,因為是有孩子的。(關於有孩子的,我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時,就有聽聞)
如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA,這對法王和他的信徒來說,會很尷尬和矛盾,因為做或不做,都死。
你若問我,我覺得『人數是有力量的』,同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來,是不出奇的。
我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒,如果你們真的愛佛教,先別說批判,但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議,你是間接害了佛教。
(下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容,當中有很多細節。)
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
F. Delay / Prejudice
CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).
[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.
[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.
[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.
[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.
BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.
[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.
[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.
[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.
[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.
[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.
[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.
[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.
[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.
[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.
[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.
[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.
[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:
a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;
b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;
c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;
d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.
[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.
[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.
[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.
[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:
I will definitely find a way to meet her
And you
Remember to take care of yourself if something happens
[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.
[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.
[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.
[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.
[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.
[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:
3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person
(a) is married to another person, or
(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and
(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or
(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.
[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).
[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.
[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.
[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.
[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.
[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.
[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.
[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.
[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.
[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.
[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.
[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:
[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.
[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:
1. Shelter:
(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?
(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?
(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?
2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:
(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?
(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?
(c) What were their feelings toward each other?
(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?
(e) Did they eat their meals together?
(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?
(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?
3. Services:
What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:
(a) preparation of meals;
(b) washing and mending clothes;
(c) shopping;
(d) household maintenance; and
(e) any other domestic services?
4. Social:
(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?
(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?
5. Societal:
What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?
6. Support (economic):
(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?
(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?
(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?
7. Children:
What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?
[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).
[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:
[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.
[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.
[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.
[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:
[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.
[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:
a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.
b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.
c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.
d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.
e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.
f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.
g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.
[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.
[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.
[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.
[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).
[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.
[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.
[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.
[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.
[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.
[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.
[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.
[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:
[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.
[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.
[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.
[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:
[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.
[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:
[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …
[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.
[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.
F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.
[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.
[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.
[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.
[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.
[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.
[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.
[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.
[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.
CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.
[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.
[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.
“Master Elwood”
同時也有99部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過8,310的網紅呆莉の媽_Lilimom,也在其Youtube影片中提到,珍藏已久的問題,一次回答完!💕 有任何其他想問的都歡迎留言跟我說呦~ 呆莉 Instagram @__lilimom https://www.instagram.com/__lilimom/ - Vacanza 純銀訂製項鍊團購資訊: 🔸訂製項鍊 原價1680 特價1480(88折) htt...
「50 facts about me問題」的推薦目錄:
- 關於50 facts about me問題 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於50 facts about me問題 在 Sammy LYN 海外報 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於50 facts about me問題 在 台灣共識 台灣成真 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於50 facts about me問題 在 呆莉の媽_Lilimom Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於50 facts about me問題 在 關韶文 關關 Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於50 facts about me問題 在 Karo1805 Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於50 facts about me問題 在 50 facts about me❤️關於我的50個問題part1 - YouTube 的評價
- 關於50 facts about me問題 在 關於我的50個問題# 50 facts about me Part 1 b站萬粉 - YouTube 的評價
- 關於50 facts about me問題 在 PINKY DON'T STOP - 50 FACTS ABOUT ME (結果大家發問的 ... 的評價
- 關於50 facts about me問題 在 21 Best 50 facts about me ideas | fun questions to ask, getting ... 的評價
- 關於50 facts about me問題 在 50 Random Facts About Me YouTube Tag - Mama's Losin' It! 的評價
50 facts about me問題 在 Sammy LYN 海外報 Facebook 的最佳解答
50 Facts About Me | 國小就跳級、掉牙小故事、怪癖、怎麼練英文口說? //Sammy LYN//
https://youtu.be/7vqEutA3SxI
50 facts about me問題 在 台灣共識 台灣成真 Facebook 的最佳解答
有確實的人證物證,FB 再封鎖就是聯邦重罪。
Tony Bobulinski聲明全文:
我的名字是Tony Bobulinski,以下陳述的事情都是正確而真實的。
這些事實不是來自任何國內、外的假訊息,
所有牴觸事實明說暗示都是錯誤且冒犯的。我就是《紐約郵報》7天前公布電郵的收件人,信件的副本則是寄給杭特拜登以及Rob Walker。這封電子郵件是真的。
今天中午,我收到參議院國土安全事務委員會以及財政委員會要求,
他們要求我交出所有我生意事務上與拜登家族有關的文件,以及各種與國外企業或個人商務有關的文件。我有很多相關紀錄以及雙方往來文件,我打算馬上將所有文件交給兩個委員會。
我的祖父是服役37年的軍事情報官、我父親是服役20年以上的海軍軍官、我兄弟是服役28年的空軍飛官;而我也曾貢獻4年給海軍,並以中尉身分退伍。我曾接受高規格的安全檢查,也是海軍核子動力訓練員。我對我的整個家庭為國家的貢獻感到非常驕傲,而我並不是一個從政者,我人生中少數幫忙的幾次競選活動,都獻給了民主黨。
如果媒體和那些大型科技公司過去幾週做好他們份內的工作,那我根本不會被牽扯到這件事中,我長期以來為這個國家服務奉獻,我沒辦法再忍受自己與家族的名字被牽連到俄羅斯假資訊站,或被媒體暗示與這些報導稱「謊言、造假」的事情有關。
退伍後,我成為一名投資人,在全球各地投資,我旅行過超過50個國家,我相信我住在這世界上最棒的國家。
我說的每一句話都是事實,我知道這是真的,因為我身在其中。我是中國華信集團華信能源總裁葉簡明與拜登家族合作企業的控股公司「Sinohawk Holding」公司執行長,而我是被James Gillar與杭特拜登找來當執行長的。《紐約郵報》揭露2017年5月13日寄出的郵
件中「大人物(the Big Guy)」就是拜登。另外一個「JB」指的是拜登的兄弟Jim Biden。
杭特拜登稱他的父親喬拜登是「大人物」或是「我的總裁(my chairman)」,且常常請拜登簽署文件,或對我們討論的潛在交易提出意見。我看到拜登聲稱不曾過問兒子的生意,對比我親眼所見,這不是事實,因為這不只是杭特的生意,我聽到他們總說要把拜登家族的名字和遺產放在這裡。
我了解中國不在乎財務健康與報酬率,他們只是將「Sinohawk」用以影響政治,當我發現杭特只是將「Sinohawk」當作他的個人小金庫,盡可能地用最快的速度從中國提款時,我採取了一些措施阻止。
當我看到參議員強森的報告,這使我震驚,讓我意識到拜登家族在我背後偷偷拿錢,拿了中國幾百萬美元的錢,即便他們曾告訴我他們不會對他們的合作夥伴這麼做。
我要求拜登家族向美國的人民開誠布公,說出一切事實,這樣我才能脫離與這件事的關聯,這樣我才不用被迫幫忙他們回答這些問題。
我沒有特定政治傾向,我只是在拜登幕後看到一些事情,讓我不得不越來越關注。拜登家族積極利用「拜登」的名義從國外企業賺取數百萬美元,甚至有些錢來自於被共產黨控制的中國。
天佑美國!
聲明全文出處 Tony Bobulinski透過《紐約郵報》發布
聲明英文全文:
My name is Tony Bobulinski. The facts set forth below are true and accurate;they are not any form of domestic or foreign disinformation. Any suggestion to the contrary is false and offensive. I am the recipient of the email published seven days ago by the New York Post which showed a copy to Hunter Biden and Rob Walker. That email is genuine.
This afternoon I received a request from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and the Senate Committee on Finance
requesting all documents relating to my business affairs with the Biden
family as well as various foreign entities and individuals. I have extensive
relevant records and communications and I intend to produce those items to both Committees in the immediate future.
I am the grandson of a 37 year Army Intelligence officer, the son of a 20+
year career Naval Officer and the brother of a 28 year career Naval Flight
Officer. I myself served our country for 4 years and left the Navy as LT
Bobulinski. I held a high level security clearance and was an instructor and
then CTO for Naval Nuclear Power Training Command. I take great pride in the time my family and I served this country. I am also not a political person.What few campaign contributions I have made in my life were to Democrats.
If the media and Big Tech companies had done their jobs over the past several weeks I would be irrelevant in this story. Given my long standing service and devotion to this great country, I could no longer allow my family’s name to be associated or tied to Russian disinformation or implied lies and false
narratives dominating the media right now.
After leaving the military I became an institutional investor investing
extensively around the world and on every continent. I have traveled to over 50 countries. I believe, hands down, we live in the greatest country in the world.
What I am outlining is fact. I know it is fact because I lived it. I am the
CEO of Sinohawk Holdings which was a partnership between the Chinese
operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family. I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden. The reference to “the Big Guy” in the much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other “JB” referenced in that email is Jim
Biden, Joe’s brother.
Hunter Biden called his dad ‘the Big Guy’ or ‘my Chairman,’ and
frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various
potential deals that we were discussing. I’ve seen Vice President Biden
saying he never talked to Hunter about his business. I’ve seen firsthand
that that’s not true, because it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said
they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.
I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI.
They were looking at this as a political or influence investment. Once I
realized that Hunter wanted to use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came from the Chinese, I took steps to prevent that from happening.
The Johnson Report connected some dots in a way that shocked me — it made me realize the Bidens had gone behind my back and gotten paid millions of dollars by the Chinese, even though they told me they hadn’t and wouldn’t do that to their partners.
I would ask the Biden family to address the American people and outline the facts so I can go back to being irrelevant — and so I am not put in a
position to have to answer those questions for them.
I don’t have a political ax to grind; I just saw behind the Biden curtain
and I grew concerned with what I saw. The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist controlled China.
God bless America
50 facts about me問題 在 呆莉の媽_Lilimom Youtube 的最讚貼文
珍藏已久的問題,一次回答完!💕
有任何其他想問的都歡迎留言跟我說呦~
呆莉 Instagram @__lilimom
https://www.instagram.com/__lilimom/
-
Vacanza 純銀訂製項鍊團購資訊:
🔸訂製項鍊 原價1680 特價1480(88折)
https://vacanza.tw/訂製項鍊88折
🔹項鍊+保養組 原價2390 特價2030(85折)
https://vacanza.tw/項鍊超值組
團購時間為9/1~9/7,大家把握時間呦!👍🏻🥰
-
1. 名字 2:46
2. 星座血型 3:12
3. 身高體重 3:23
4. 職業 3:45
5. 學經歷 4:04
6. 做過哪些工作
鋼琴老師、鋼琴演奏、拍攝平面&動態、餐廳打工...很多。
7. 學音樂契機
小時候看了別人彈琴很羨慕,媽媽就帶我去學琴了!
8. 最喜歡音樂系的什麼
我喜歡上合唱課!還有我覺得讀音樂系有很多開音樂會的機會,很棒!
9. 讀書跟出社會有哪些不一樣的地方 4:38
10. 個性的優缺點 5:46
11. 怎麼培養氣質 6:47
12. 如何面對挫折 7:27
13. 在人際關係中是個怎樣的人 9:10
14. 家庭給自己的影響 9:43
15. 喜歡現在的工作嗎 10:44
16. 面對負評的方法 11:26
17. 最喜歡的料理 12:09
18. 最喜歡的YouTuber 12:36
19. 最喜歡的藝人 13:30
20. 最常聽的音樂類型 14:44
21. 最喜歡的動物 15:08
22. 最常逛的網拍 15:31
23. 最討厭的生物 15:38
24. 每天花多少時間滑手機 16:20
25. 最喜歡的劇或電影 16:40
26. 談過幾次戀愛 17:35
27. 喜歡的男生類型 18:01
28. 在感情中是怎樣的人 18:39
29. 都怎麼吸引異性 19:06
30. 婚戀價值觀 19:33
31. 未來擇偶條件 20:35
32. 結婚後會是怎樣的太太 21:51
33. 想生小孩嗎 22:28
34. 如果有小孩的話會怎麼教育小孩 22:55
35. 會讓小孩學音樂嗎 23:13
36. 如何走出失戀 23:36
37. 有遇過渣男嗎 24:27
38. 怎麼接到工作 24:56
39. 工作最不愉快的事 25:44
40. 工作最有成就感的瞬間 26:42
41. 收入 27:26
42. 理財計畫 29:04
43. 現在最想買的東西 29:41
44. 會很在意薪水嗎 30:00
45. 會花最多錢在什麼地方上 30:39
46. 自由業的心酸 31:14
47. 未來工作願景目標 32:15
48. 怎麼接近夢想 33:03
49. 怎麼找到適合自己的風格 33:54
50. 希望10年後自己是怎樣的人 34:56
#50factsaboutme
-
About 呆莉の媽🐶🪴
Facebook @Lilimom 呆莉の媽
https://www.facebook.com/Lilimom-%E5%91%86%E8%8E%89%E3%81%AE%E5%AA%BD-110063974152607/about/?ref=page_internal
E-mail: lilimom0820@gmail.com
![post-title](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0PkDEh9hRkY/hqdefault.jpg)
50 facts about me問題 在 關韶文 關關 Youtube 的精選貼文
「當興趣成了工作,當工作成了身分。」
-
小時候最羨慕的就是可以「做自己喜歡的工作」,以前都覺得,長大以後如果能把興趣和工作結合,真的是再幸福不過的事情,但是當你真正做到了以後,才發現最困難的是,學習找到生活和工作的平衡。
-
興趣本來是用來讓自己陶冶性情、打發時間,但是當成了工作以後,可能會失去了原本的初衷和快樂,也可能因為業務上的煩心,導致你一度害怕自己的興趣失針,我想這應該是很多人的必經過程。
-
這集趁著40萬QA,也回答了很多大家想要問我的問題。
-
00:00 40萬QA開始
01:21 害羞的身高體重公開
02:22 一開始為什麼會想要減肥?
03:35 減肥到底要如何開始!
05:00 到底什麼時候要重駛減肥列車!
05:30 減肥後的最大目標超驚人!
-
06:08 為什麼想要讀世新廣電?
06:46 在傳播學院學到的經驗分享!
07:49 在世新最後悔的一堂課?
08:55 廣電系vs新聞系,畢業後當記者有差嗎?
10:03 進入傳播圈工作,是否很辛苦?
10:53 興趣變成職業,你快樂嗎?
11:42 一定要讀傳播,才能進入相關產業嗎?
-
#當興趣成了工作 #當工作成了身分 #40萬QA
-
【Fashion Well】關韶文首次時尚大片!新世代影響力人物「我的美,由我來定義!」feat.ELLE Taiwan
https://youtu.be/pfiejtpR4GM
【23歲存到100萬】負債50萬學貸不要怕!「規劃收入」拚第一桶金
https://youtu.be/cqovWIyPTe0
【真的不當記者了!】關韶文ETtoday離職原因公開,謝謝3年來照顧過我的你!
https://youtu.be/t3BUE4EtMt8
【一次做4份工作】23歲存100萬:1份正職、3份打工,公開「存錢血淚史!」
https://youtu.be/1hxskneaSbI
【10萬QA】關韶文是誰?我的夢想是「幫弟弟還50萬學貸!」
https://youtu.be/3eJAqyGMW3g
【25 Facts about me】「20萬QA」當記者的八卦?會出專輯嗎?面對夢想迷惘過嗎?一次回答!
https://youtu.be/R-vKZ1LzX8o
【25 facts about me】30萬QA!採訪藝人的訣竅?如何做自己?低潮時怎麼辦?
https://youtu.be/bp9iDKLqWJw
_________________________________________________________
【不是人生勝利組,要當人生努力組!📣】
職業訪談、工作vlog、減肥列車、美妝保養、聰明消費、投資理財、美食旅遊
FB ‣ https://www.facebook.com/ethanreporter
IG ‣ https://www.instagram.com/ethan_kuan_kuan/
LINE ‣ https://lin.ee/e1ebDrI
Podcast音檔 ‣ https://linktr.ee/ethanyoutube
Podcast節目 ‣https://linktr.ee/kuan_choo
合作邀約Mail ‣ ethankuankuan@gmail.com
![post-title](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4_SZSlj2nNk/hqdefault.jpg)
50 facts about me問題 在 Karo1805 Youtube 的精選貼文
總於做完我的50 facts about me
沒想到會變這麼長,其實我講更多畫但都剪掉了
怕你們看我很煩了哈哈
應該是我會錄得最長的一個影片
我是哪裡人?
我喜歡的電影?
個性?
get to know me and leave a comment~~
喜歡的YOUTUBER
Jenn Im
https://www.youtube.com/user/clothesencounters
PELICANBAY
https://www.youtube.com/user/PelicanBayYT
KELLY YANG
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheKellyeva
德文入門問句🇦🇹🇩🇪不要再蛤了🧐 #德文教學 #你說什麼
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_h_5...
WEEKENDVLOG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXJ8ooWm6hQ&t=12s
IG
https://www.instagram.com/karoooo1818/
![post-title](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LN_iK5JSTPA/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEbCKgBEF5IVfKriqkDDggBFQAAiEIYAXABwAEG&rs=AOn4CLBdbxwVywt9sG1T1uf78hMrIh7VSQ)
50 facts about me問題 在 關於我的50個問題# 50 facts about me Part 1 b站萬粉 - YouTube 的推薦與評價
![影片讀取中](/images/youtube.png)
關於我的 50 個 問題 # 50 facts about me Part 1 b站萬粉:). 27K views 3 years ago. IngridChen. IngridChen. 33K subscribers. Subscribe. ... <看更多>
50 facts about me問題 在 PINKY DON'T STOP - 50 FACTS ABOUT ME (結果大家發問的 ... 的推薦與評價
50 FACTS ABOUT ME (結果大家發問的整理一下全部27個...來來來大家看看還有沒有什麼想問的~我們至少湊到30個好嗎 ) 身高體重覺得自己是什麼個性? ... <看更多>
50 facts about me問題 在 50 facts about me❤️關於我的50個問題part1 - YouTube 的推薦與評價
50 facts about me ❤️關於我的 50 個 問題 part1#韓國練習生#韓國徵選#韓國生活#韓國旅遊#訂閱按讚開小鈴鐺普通再不能普通的台灣小孩如何在韓國當練習生 ... ... <看更多>