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

Popper photo dump: the fear and excitement was real. 😅🙈🎉 but ultimately Tien didn’t seem too bothered 😂

We are now ~9 weeks away from meeting #babykaypoh 😱 we’ve also been keeping Tien at home from preschool for a few weeks now as a precautionary measure due to the high number of cases so it’s been all hands on deck at home. Counting it as a blessing to chalk up the last before we officially grow from a family of 3 to 4.

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”

【本校防疫訊息 #5月14日緊急更新：因應染疫個案持續擴增，#本校5月17日起啟動全面遠距教學等防疫措施】(#5月15日更新)
NTU COVID-19 Prevention Message ( #0514Urgent) — Preventive Measures and Remote Learning for All Classes Starting May 17 in Response to Increasing Number of Cases

.
全校教職員工生大家好：

.
因台北市及新北市已有多起染疫個案，且持續增加中，疫情已接近警戒標準的第三階段（橘燈），即日起本校實施以下防疫措施，請各單位配合：

.
1. 5月15日起各類會議活動，包括行政單位、各學院及學系活動（如 #小型畢業典禮）如無法改為線上進行，請研議取消辦理或延後辦理。

2. #體育館暫停開放；#5月15日起圖書館亦暫停開放自習室及閱覽室，僅提供借還書籍。

3. 5月15日起本校實施校園門禁，只開放 #大門、 #辛亥及長興入口。管制期間本校、臺科大、臺師大教職員工生及中研院等駐本校區人員、校友及退休人員憑證入校，洽公者需出示身分及相關證明文件（如開會通知、邀請函、電郵、訪客證、工作證或其他證明等文件，得採紙本或影像檔方式。），#無證明文件者由受訪單位派員至進出口確認身分後始得進入。各校內館舍亦請持續落實人員值班、量測體溫、以及實名制登錄（詳見：https://www.facebook.com/iloventu/posts/1739363589575926 ）。

4. 5月15日起請同學們非必要情形儘量不要進入校園並減少外出，一同遵守防疫規定，以降低染疫風險。一般社團活動停辦或改為線上辦理。活動中心關閉社團活動場地(僅允許同學至社團辦公室拿取私人物品)。心輔中心於防疫期間仍提供預約初談及個別諮商，有相關疑問可電話或電郵洽詢。

5. 5月15日起本校餐廳鼓勵外帶餐點。 如不得已而內用餐點，需採一人一桌、或於桌面上放置格板隔離。

6. 週六（5月15日）上午總務處事務組將進行校園公共區域擴大消毒作業。

7. #5月17日起本校所有課程改為遠距教學。所有校屬教學館舍禁止學生進入，僅允許教師、職員和助教等進出以錄製線上課程。實驗室請教師安排使用時段，每一時段最多4人同時使用。（詳見：https://www.facebook.com/iloventu/posts/1739368969575388）

8. 5月17日起本校各單位可依業務內容屬性調整辦公方式, 安排採居家辦公、異地辦公、或分批辦公方式辦公，並應向人事室提供名冊。

9. 疫情嚴峻，各項因應措施將依中央宣布而隨時調整，敬請全校教職員工生務必配合各項防疫措施。

.
同時再次提醒大家，目前疫情嚴峻出門應全程配戴口罩、勤洗手、與他人保持社交距離，並自我注意是否出現發燒、呼吸道症狀、腹瀉、嗅味覺異常等疑似症狀。如出現疑似症狀，應確實配戴醫用口罩，儘速至附近社區採檢醫院就醫，且不得搭乘大眾交通運輸工具；就醫時，應主動告知接觸史、旅遊史、職業暴露及身邊是否出現其他人有類似症狀；返家後亦應佩戴醫用口罩，避免外出。

.
國立臺灣大學防疫小組 敬上

.

.
Dear NTU students and colleagues,
With the increasing number of infections in Taipei City and New Taipei City, the pandemic situation is now approaching Alert Level 3 (orange light). In response to this urgency, the University is asking all departments and offices to comply with the following preventive measures.

.
1. Starting May 15, events organized by administrative offices or by colleges and departments (e.g. small-scale commencements) shall be canceled or postponed to a later date if they cannot be held online.

.
2. The Sports Center will be temporarily closed. Starting May 15, the NTU Main Library will close its study rooms and reading rooms; circulation services will still be available.

.
3. Starting May 15, access to the University will be limited to the Main Gate, Xinhai Gate, and Changxing Gate. NTU, NTNU, or NTUST faculty, staff and students, on-campus Academia Sinica staff, NTU alumni, and retired personnel should present a relevant ID card to enter the University. Visitors for official purposes should also present an ID card and relevant paperwork (e.g. a meeting notification, invitation, email, visitor/work pass, or others in paper or electronically). Those without any proof documents should be chaperoned by staff of the receiving departments/offices to enter. University premises must continue to be staffed for temperature taking at the entrance and real-name system should also be implemented. ( https://www.facebook.com/iloventu/posts/1739363589575926 )

.
4. Starting May 15, students should refrain from entering the University unless absolutely necessary and they should also decrease the number of going out. Preventive measures must be fully observed to minimize the risk of infection. Student club events will be suspended or go online and event venues at the Activity Center will be closed (students are allowed to pick up personal belongings from club offices). The Student Counseling Center will continue to provide intake and counseling services and inquiry for relevant resources will still be available via telephone or email.

.
5. Starting May 15, campus restaurants/cafeterias will encourage diners to buy take-outs. Those dining indoors should be seated alone at a table or share one installed with a protective board.

.
6. On the morning of this Saturday (May 15), the General Service Division of the Office of General Affairs will begin a large-scale disinfection at the University’s public spaces.

.
7. Starting May 15, all classes will be taught remotely. Students will be denied access to university-owned teaching halls. Faculty, staff, and teaching assistants may be allowed in to record online courses. Faculty members in charge of laboratories should schedule their usage, with each session being simultaneously used by up to four people.( https://www.facebook.com/iloventu/posts/1739368969575388 )

.
8. Starting May 17, all departments and administrative offices groups considering staff’s areas of responsibilities should plan how to work from home, work in different locations, or rotate staff in smaller groups. A list to this purpose should be provided to the Personnel Department.

.
9. Preventive measures will constantly be adjusted in accordance with the CECC’s latest announcements. The University is asking for your compliance with the preventive measures.

.
As the COVID-19 is still wreaking havoc, please be reminded to wear a mask at all times when you go out, wash hands frequently, and keep appropriate social distancing. Be on alert for suspected symptoms: fever, respiratory complications, diarrhea, and abnormality of smell and taste. If they appear, please wear a medical mask, immediately seek medical attention at a nearby hospital for COVID-19 testing, and refrain from using any public transportation. When in the hospital for treatment, please voluntarily tell the physician your contact and travel history, potential occupational exposure to the virus, as well as people around you with similar symptoms. When you return home, please also wear a medical mask and avoid going out if not necessary.

Sincerely yours,
NTU Epidemic Prevention Team

踊ってみてね！！！！！！！

🎧『 #ヒロインオーディション 』デジタルリリース・配信リンク🎧
https://akirose.streamlink.to/HeroineAudition

フルで踊っているMVはこっちでcheck
https://youtu.be/eN--w_NA6hs

「ヒロインオーディション」
作詞：真崎エリカ
作曲：酒井拓也（Arte Refact）
編曲：酒井拓也（Arte Refact）

--歌詞--
「キミのヒロインは誰…？」

おぼえてる優しい
キミの言葉にキュンとして
上手に言えない
代わりに笑いかけてみたの

目が合った気がしたそれだけで
鼓動ハネた
お願い
勘違いじゃありませんように

そっと心のなかで　熱い視線送った
振り向いてって　願っちゃってた
ヒロインオーディション　エントリーしたらワタシ
「ねえ、選んでくれるかな…？」


マジメな性格
おはようだけで伝わるよ
何気ないつぶやき
もしかしてと期待してる

眩しい素敵な人ばかりで
自信もなくて
それでも本音では

365日もっと近づきたい
ワタシなりのペースになるけど
ヒロインオーディション　勇気を出したらキミは
「ねえ、答えてくれるかな…？」


出会った一瞬ってかなりすごいミラクル
このチャンスは赤い糸
ギュッと手繰り寄せて運命にしよう
信じて…
まっすぐ…
せーので言葉にして…！
「キミのヒロインは誰…？」


きっとキミの心を　動かしてみせるよ
まだまだぜんぶ　足りないけれど
ヒロインオーディション　選んでそしてワタシを
いつかギュッとしてほしい


「ありがとう、ずっと大好きだよ！」

（lyric）
Rosenthal - Heroine Audition
Who will be your heroine, I wonder...
I still remember your gentle words
They made my li'l ol' heart skip a beat or two
I could not find the words to say
So I gave you a big smile to show my gratitude
I felt like we made eye contact, and that was enough
To send my heart racing
Oh, please tell me
I read the signs right, I'm not imagining things
And so, quietly within my mind, I sent you a passionate gaze
Hoping against hope that you would look my way
Your heroine audition, if I entered myself all for you
Say, would you select me to be the one?
You are so very down-to-earth
Just the way you wish me good morning tells it all
The things you say so casually
Have me read between the lines, hoping for much more
All the people around you are so, so wonderful
I'm not at all confident
But even if so, deep down inside
I want to be much closer to you, all day, all month, all year
I will take it slow and steady, like only I can
Your heroine audition, if I mustered up the courage all for you
Say, would you reward me for what I've done?
The moment that brought us together is a crazy miracle
This chance meeting is a red thread of fate
I'll take it all into my hands, make it my own destiny
I'll believe
Set me free
And pour my entire heart out on three
Who will be your heroine, I wonder...
I know I can grab your heart for sure and make it beat only for me
I know I'm not there just yet, I have so far to go
Your heroine audition, pick me as the only one for you
Take me in your arms someday, my hero
Thank you for everything, love you forever!
￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
▹▸How About Aki Rosenthal 　
アキロゼとは…　アローナ！（挨拶）
ホロライブ所属Vtuber（1期生）
異世界からやってきた癒し系ハーフエルフJK
歌と踊りが大好き、お酒も大好き
見てくれるみんなにとって生活の彩りをお届けできるよう活動中
チャンネル登録/通知ONよろしくお願いいたします！
▹▸Twitter　
https://twitter.com/akirosenthal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
◆アキロゼ誕生日2021 を記念したグッズがBOOTHより発売！！
https://hololive.booth.pm/items/2825001
🍎NEW🍎 ​Akirose Birthday 2021 Anniversary GOODS
◆Purchase from overseas is here
https://www.geekjack.net/aki_rosenthal/language/en
◆从海外购买就在这里
https://www.geekjack.net/aki_rosenthal/language/zh-TW
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1曲目の民族調オリジナル曲MV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii7rtNaGlls

🎧デジタルリリース・配信リンク 🎧
▻ https://akirosenthal.streamlink.to/SHALLYS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
▶ホロライブ公式YouTubeチャンネルでもオリジナルコンテンツ配信中！▷ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJFZ...
▶ホロライブ公式Twitter▷ https://twitter.com/hololivetv
▶ホロライブ公式サイト▷ https://www.hololive.tv/
￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
◆ファンレター等こちらまで◆
〒173-0003
東京都板橋区加賀1丁目6番1号
ネットデポ新板橋　
カバー株式会社　ホロライブ 　プレゼント係分
アキ・ローゼンタール宛

お問い合わせはコチラまで▷
https://www.hololive.tv/contact

#Hololive #Akirose

🎧『 #ヒロインオーディション 』デジタルリリース・配信リンク🎧
https://akirose.streamlink.to/HeroineAudition

踊ってみた大歓迎！
⇒ダンスレクチャー動画
https://youtu.be/9uNwNT88xV4

「ヒロインオーディション」
作詞：真崎エリカ
作曲：酒井拓也（Arte Refact）
編曲：酒井拓也（Arte Refact）
Guitar：中嶋康孝
Bass：小林修己
Piano：宇都圭輝
Trumpet：吉澤達彦
Trombone：半田信英
Alto Sax：庵原良司
Tenor Sax：竹野昌邦
All Other Instruments & Programming：酒井拓也(Arte Refact)
Recording Engineer：Neeraj Khajanchi
Recording & Mixing Engineer：菊池司（Arte Refact）
Recording Studio：NK SOUND TOKYO、Studio Arte
Mixing Studio：Studio Arte
Sound Produced & Directed by 桑原聖（Arte Refact）

歌/ダンス Aki Rosenthal
振付 CHIEMI
動画/撮影 Hololive

--歌詞--
「キミのヒロインは誰…？」

おぼえてる優しい
キミの言葉にキュンとして
上手に言えない
代わりに笑いかけてみたの

目が合った気がしたそれだけで
鼓動ハネた
お願い
勘違いじゃありませんように

そっと心のなかで　熱い視線送った
振り向いてって　願っちゃってた
ヒロインオーディション　エントリーしたらワタシ
「ねえ、選んでくれるかな…？」


マジメな性格
おはようだけで伝わるよ
何気ないつぶやき
もしかしてと期待してる

眩しい素敵な人ばかりで
自信もなくて
それでも本音では

365日もっと近づきたい
ワタシなりのペースになるけど
ヒロインオーディション　勇気を出したらキミは
「ねえ、答えてくれるかな…？」


出会った一瞬ってかなりすごいミラクル
このチャンスは赤い糸
ギュッと手繰り寄せて運命にしよう
信じて…
まっすぐ…
せーので言葉にして…！
「キミのヒロインは誰…？」


きっとキミの心を　動かしてみせるよ
まだまだぜんぶ　足りないけれど
ヒロインオーディション　選んでそしてワタシを
いつかギュッとしてほしい


「ありがとう、ずっと大好きだよ！」

（lyric）
Rosenthal - Heroine Audition
Who will be your heroine, I wonder...
I still remember your gentle words
They made my li'l ol' heart skip a beat or two
I could not find the words to say
So I gave you a big smile to show my gratitude
I felt like we made eye contact, and that was enough
To send my heart racing
Oh, please tell me
I read the signs right, I'm not imagining things
And so, quietly within my mind, I sent you a passionate gaze
Hoping against hope that you would look my way
Your heroine audition, if I entered myself all for you
Say, would you select me to be the one?
You are so very down-to-earth
Just the way you wish me good morning tells it all
The things you say so casually
Have me read between the lines, hoping for much more
All the people around you are so, so wonderful
I'm not at all confident
But even if so, deep down inside
I want to be much closer to you, all day, all month, all year
I will take it slow and steady, like only I can
Your heroine audition, if I mustered up the courage all for you
Say, would you reward me for what I've done?
The moment that brought us together is a crazy miracle
This chance meeting is a red thread of fate
I'll take it all into my hands, make it my own destiny
I'll believe
Set me free
And pour my entire heart out on three
Who will be your heroine, I wonder...
I know I can grab your heart for sure and make it beat only for me
I know I'm not there just yet, I have so far to go
Your heroine audition, pick me as the only one for you
Take me in your arms someday, my hero
Thank you for everything, love you forever!
￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
▹▸How About Aki Rosenthal 　
アキロゼとは…　アローナ！（挨拶）
ホロライブ所属Vtuber（1期生）
異世界からやってきた癒し系ハーフエルフJK
歌と踊りが大好き、お酒も大好き
見てくれるみんなにとって生活の彩りをお届けできるよう活動中
チャンネル登録/通知ONよろしくお願いいたします！
▹▸Twitter　
https://twitter.com/akirosenthal

----------------------------------------------------------------------
◆アキロゼ誕生日2021 を記念したグッズがBOOTHより発売！！
https://hololive.booth.pm/items/2825001
🍎NEW🍎 ​Akirose Birthday 2021 Anniversary GOODS
◆Purchase from overseas is here
https://www.geekjack.net/aki_rosenthal/language/en
◆从海外购买就在这里
https://www.geekjack.net/aki_rosenthal/language/zh-TW
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1曲目の民族調オリジナル曲MV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii7rtNaGlls

🎧デジタルリリース・配信リンク 🎧
▻ https://akirosenthal.streamlink.to/SHALLYS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
▶ホロライブ公式YouTubeチャンネルでもオリジナルコンテンツ配信中！▷ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJFZ...
▶ホロライブ公式Twitter▷ https://twitter.com/hololivetv
▶ホロライブ公式サイト▷ https://www.hololive.tv/
￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
◆ファンレター等こちらまで◆
〒173-0003
東京都板橋区加賀1丁目6番1号
ネットデポ新板橋　
カバー株式会社　ホロライブ 　プレゼント係分
アキ・ローゼンタール宛

お問い合わせはコチラまで▷
https://www.hololive.tv/contact

- Mua kẹp điện thoại Choetech: https://bit.ly/3nxLzT6
- Nhóm săn hàng rẻ và mã giảm giá tại: https://bit.ly/3kGVkwe

Review 2-in-1 Flexible Phone Holder with Fast Wireless Charger, CHOETECH Lazy Wireless Charger Holder for iPhone 11/11 Pro/11 Pro Max/XS Max/XR/XS/X/8/8 Plus, 10W Fast-charging Galaxy S20/S10/S9 and More
【Unique 2-in-1 Design】Not just a cell phone holder, but a FAST wireless charger. Wireless charger and phone mount are combined as one to power your device without the need of messy cables, which makes you enjoy fast charging and watching movies simultaneously with your hands released.
【Unimaginable Convenience】Charged in a fast speed, it perfectly solves the problems of low-battery anxiety so that you can put devices vertically to do video meeting, do FaceTime call or horizontally to watch videos. Additionally, the lazy wireless charger holder comes with a USB cable. Just put and play, no other cord needed. (Please know that tablets can’t support wireless charging.)
【Supreme Compatibility】This phone holder wireless charger provides 3 charging modes to satisfy your different needs. Apart from 10W for Samsung Galaxy S20/S20+/S20 Ultra/S10/ S9/ S8 Plus/ S7/ Note 9/8, LG V30/ V40/ G7, 7.5W for iPhone Xs/ Xs Max/ XR/ X/ 8/ 8 Plus, it is also support all Qi-enabled devices at 5W standard charging speed. Besides, it serves as a universal phone holder that fits for all 4.7 to 7 inches devices, such as HUAWEI Mate 30/20, P30/P20, P8, P7, HTC, Sony, LG, Sony, and more.
【360° Adjustment】The fully 360-degree rotation and extra-long arm allows for optimum viewing and easier use of functions. Detachable in width, the wireless charger mount can accommodate tablets within 175mm in width and cell phones over 125mm, fitting most phones and tablets.
【Ergonomic Design】Easy to stretch with soft strings and do NOT damage your phone and furniture. Dual Rubber pads on the bottom and clamp protect both your phone and holder from sliding and scratches. 1.5m/4.9ft USB cable helps you use freely on the couch or bed. More importantly, the linear vent provides better heat dissipation, keeping your devices cool even with case (≤6mm).
【Easy to Install】No tools necessary! Simply mount the base to your desired surface and tighten it in place, then you can twist the arm or turn the clamp to your preferred angle. Another friendly design, the handy hole for audio jack, offers a great music experience and fast wireless charging at the same time.

#KepDienThoai #Lazada #Choetech