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

美國商務部積極要求半導體代工業者45天內填報RFI供應鏈資料

商務部對晶片短缺採取“積極”行動而發出一項RFI請求（Request for Information），要求供應鏈上所有部分——生產者、消費者和中間商——自願共享有關庫存、需求和交付動態的信息（all parts of the supply chain – producers, consumers, and intermediaries – to voluntarily share information about inventories, demand, and delivery dynamics）。商務部宣稱建立RFI目標以了解和量化可能存在瓶頸的位置，並呼籲企業領袖在未來45天內對RFI做出回應，並幫助提高供應鏈內的信任度和透明度。....

#HannahEdApplyStory - Hot girl Hà Nội thạo 3 ngôn ngữ, giành học bổng 7 tỷ từ trường đại học hàng đầu nước Mỹ

Cô bạn Yến Lan được mệnh danh là hot girl trường THPT Chuyên Hà Nội Amsterdam là ví dụ điển hình. Cô bạn vừa trúng tuyển học bổng trị giá 300.000 USD (gần 7 tỷ đồng) tại trường đại học Pennsylvania (UPenn) - một trong 8 trường thuộc nhóm Ivy League danh giá.

Phải nói thêm, đại học Pennsylvania được xếp hạng thứ 8 ở Mỹ và đứng thứ 16 toàn thế giới theo BXH tuyển sinh của QS. Trong kỳ tuyển sinh vừa qua, trường nhận mức hồ sơ cao kỷ lục khiến cho việc thi vào chỉ ở mức 5,68%.

Yến Lan sinh ra trong một gia đình có truyền thống du học. Cô bạn có bố mẹ, cô, dì, thậm chí là cả ông bà đều đi học Thạc sĩ, Tiến sĩ ở nước ngoài. 10x chính là người đầu tiên trong gia đình ước mơ được đi du học bậc đại học để tiếp nối truyền thống gia đình.

Suốt những năm tiểu học và THCS, Yến Lan chỉ học trường công lập bình thường. Cho đến năm cấp 3, nữ sinh quyết tâm thi vào trường THPT Chuyên Hà Nội - Amsterdam - trường chuyên có tiếng ở thủ đô.

Hồi mới vào trường không quen ai nên cứ thấy hoạt động hay CLB nào hay ho là Yến Lan lại xin apply vào. Sau dần, cô nàng cũng có được những vị trí nhất định ở các hoạt động ngoại khóa như: Trưởng ban CLB Khoa học trong trường, Phó Chủ tịch CLB Văn hóa The Intermediaries...

Yến Lan từng 3 lần đều đạt thành tích Nhất - Nhì trong cuộc thi học sinh giỏi môn tiếng Anh cấp Quốc gia. 10x cũng có chứng chỉ B1 tiếng Pháp đủ để cô nàng giao tiếp và nói chuyện thoải mái với người nước ngoài.

Cũng từ những môn học này, Yến Lan biết đến ngành Cognitive Science (Khoa học nhận thức). Đây được coi là ngành học khá lạ mà khi kể với người quen, hầu hết bạn của 10x đều thấy bất ngờ.

Nguồn K14: https://bit.ly/2RZ7p7Y

☘️✈️Các bạn muốn xin học bổng các học bổng trong và ngoài nước khác, đủ bậc nữa, đừng quên các lớp học bổng HannahEd, chương trình Mentor 1-1, Review hồ sơ luôn sẵn sàng để hỗ trợ các bạn tối đa, giúp các bạn tìm ra điểm mạnh, câu chuyện của bản thân các bạn nhé.
Các bạn email thoải mái câu hỏi, CV về [email protected] hoặc nhắn tin cho page, page sẽ review free CV cho cả nhà.
Link nhận thông tin về các chương trình Scholarship Support HannahEd: http://tiny.cc/HannahEdRegister
Lịch học của lớp 2 tháng gần nhất: http://tiny.cc/HannahEdClass
Link thông tin về lớp:
https://hannahed.co/lop-tim-va-nop-hoc-bong/
Các bạn email thoải mái câu hỏi, CV về [email protected] hoặc nhắn tin cho page nhé.

#HannahEd #duhoc #hocbong #sanhocbong #scholarshipforVietnamesestudents

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”

不看不知道，一看嚇一跳，在台灣極缺疫苗，有企業願意出來幫忙拯救人命時，我國政府第一個想到的是透過外媒，扭曲事實真相，把功勞歸在自己身上，把陰謀栽在對方身上。

時代雜誌這一篇，在郭台銘和台積電聯手進了總統府之後，我國政府立刻放話說是政府徵召台積電和富士康（請注意，還刻意把台積電放在前面），然後內文還強調郭台銘之前選過總統？！這不就是暗示他有政治動機嗎？有哪一個在台灣看新聞看報導的路邊的狗會覺得當時都是蔡政府徵召民間單位？事實上就是民間單位主動申請主動爭取，還被擋了好幾十天啊！

問題是當時已經死了六百多人，政府在對國際媒體放話時，考慮的還只是政治鬥爭？這是甚麼樣的司馬昭之心，相信連路邊的狗都看得出來啊！

內容還說這是台灣政府從去年開始努力爭取ｂｎｔ疫苗的一環，環個屁啦，從林全要買三千萬劑開始擋起結果一劑都買不到這叫做努力？

【Taiwan Recruits TSMC, Foxconn to Secure BioNTech Vaccines】
https://time.com/6074333/taiwan-recruits-tsmc-foxconn-to-secure-biontech-vaccines/ (這篇有多噁心大家都應該看看)

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/exclusive-taiwans-terry-gou-tsmc-reach-initial-agreements-biontech-vaccines-2021-07-02/　

另外路透社這篇就是明顯台灣當局放話，想要歸功於都是德國政府施壓談判之後才成功的。

記者一查證德國外交部不予回應，結果轉移焦點失敗，而且提早曝光很有可能破局的狀況之下，ｂｎｔ也是不予回應。這種一直在放話，只想要看到破局的目的到底是甚麼，是不是很壞心啦！你有沒有看過這種政府自己弄不到疫苗，民間為了救命來弄，最後政府還要鬥爭民間單位的，丟不丟臉的啊！

這件事情我一定要記錄下來，講清楚，免得之後選舉又被認知作戰說又是中共害的，這裡面就是台灣政府一直放話啊，哪裡看到共產黨？


有很多時候
認知作戰不是只有在中文世界
有很多時候台灣也在做認知作戰
你知道我手上的是時代雜誌在6月18號
發的一篇專稿
請各位看
標題寫什麼
Taiwan Recruits TSMC,
Foxconn to Secure BioNTech Vaccines
給各位3秒看一看記住
123好
你知道這真的很妙
這個我們以前常就是偷龍轉鳳
就是名詞替換
各位如果你認為過去兩個月的時間
Foxconn TSMC而且請注意
在這個裡面TSMC排在Foxconn前面
T排在F前面表示這個東西不是照字母順序
而是他認為TSMC佔比較重的比例
看了過去兩個月的新聞
你怎麼會覺得是政府徵召TSMC
徵召Foxconn
how is that possible怎麼可能
你當我們都瞎了嗎
你看這篇文章寫的
真是太妙了
我懷疑這是一個平行世界
我唸第一段就好了
Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen
expanded efforts to buy vaccines
from Germany’s BioNTech Friday,
meeting with leaders of
two tech giants in an attempt
to reach a deal hindered by complications
involving China
我想說是不是
我今天這一個罪刑可能更重了
我揭穿台灣政府對時代雜誌的大外宣
你請這位記者去問問全台灣民眾
到底是哪來的膽子變成是
台灣政府徵召台積電跟富士康
來購買BNT疫苗
我再唸第二段
The attempt to recruit high-profile
intermediaries represents the government’s
latest move in long-running efforts
to buy vaccines from BioNTech
光這一句我就想說蛤
這是中華民國政府從去年以來的
購買BNT疫苗的努力之一環嗎
是他們主動徵召富士康跟TSMC
我怎麼知道的完全不一樣
去年10月是我國政府拒絕了林全的
東洋所買的3千萬劑BNT
是我國政府拒絕
10月拒絕12月拒絕
最後從3千萬劑砍到200萬劑
人家不爽賣
然後你說這是中華民國政府一直努力要做的
你知道各位你務必要去查這一份資料
而且這一篇有明顯的偏見
你看它的段落最後一段
Gou, who launched and then abandoned
a presidential campaign in 2019,
offered earlier this month to step
in to help with the government’s vaccine efforts
So far he hasn’t come up with any concrete results
我真希望知道底下的協力者是誰
他最後寫的
With assistance from Miaojung Lin,
Cindy Wang and Debby Wu
我這樣講有眼睛的人都知道
郭台銘沒有
come up with any concrete results
就是沒有實際的結果
是因為政府阻饒啊
你這個意思暗示說郭台銘空口說白話嗎
我整個看不出來到底怎麼寫
時代雜誌這一篇
就很明顯是台灣的大外宣
告訴大家說我台灣政府好棒棒
我努力了那麼多
最後我釜底抽薪
我把台積電跟郭台銘富士康叫來
請他們幫忙去買疫苗
這跟現實生活差多少
這是路透社幾天前寫的報導
Another source said the German government,
which has said it was trying to help Taiwan
obtain the BioNTech vaccines,
had been trying to speed up the talks
“The German government doesn’t
want to leave the impression
請注意這一段是引用的就是那一個
消息來源說的
“The German government doesn’t
want to leave the impression
that they didn’t sell vaccines to
Taiwan due to the Chinese pressure,
so it has been pushing the company
to speed up its talks with Taiwan,”
the source said, referring to BioNTech
好啦這個消息來源講說
我告訴你德國政府很幫我們
他們有施壓BioNTech讓他們加速跟我們的談判
The German Foreign Ministry declined to
immediately comment
結果記者拿這個東西去問德國外交部
德國外交部說我們不予評論
這不就我國外交部一直在唬爛的東西
說我們跟德國關係很好
德國有幫我們
但是6月3號德國駐台代表
也就是德國在台協會的處長王子陶
Thomas Prinz有講
我們注意到近來關於疫苗取得的爭議
請相信德國政府
特別是聯邦經濟部部長Altmaier本人
對於台灣與BioNTech間持續的溝通協調
盡了好一番努力
然而契約簽訂與否與條件
並非在政府的掌控下
而是取決於契約雙方
倘若契約雙方能夠達成共識
聯邦政府自然樂見其成
你看台灣這邊在對路透放話
說什麼我們跟德國關係很好
德國有幫我們
德國外交部不回應
而且6月3號的時候德國駐台代表
就等於駐台大使就講了
契約雙方能夠達成共識
聯邦政府自然樂見其成
然而契約簽訂與否與條件
並非在政府的掌控之下
你看這就是餵的啊
這就是餵的消息你知道
我今天覺得
你疫苗都還沒有進來
然後你就急著在那邊搶功
急著在那邊收割
這個就是假新聞
這個就是餵養消息
德國人的意思是
私人企業要簽合約是你們兩造的事
成不成要看契約雙方政府不能介入
結果你硬是把這個東西扭曲成說
德國政府希望大家趕快加快談判
那加快談判是什麼意思
加快談判就政府介入啊
政府介入是怎麼樣
是要讓他成功還是讓他失敗
我覺得這個東西太糟糕
郭台銘今天早上自己發布了聲明
特別強調路透引述的那個報導說
郭台銘已經跟BNT和上海復星
簽署了購買疫苗的初步協議
郭台銘四日他的辦公室直接回應
轉載國際媒體無法證實的消息來源
請注意這是路透社轉載國內的消息
國內的深喉嚨跟他講的
這是出口轉外銷
出口轉外銷之後又轉內銷
郭台銘說轉載國際媒體無法證實的消息來源
可能妨害台灣取得疫苗的時程
呼籲勿臆測BNT疫苗採購進度
要大家別上當
你看到底是誰案子不確定的時候就想要收割
就想要收割說我好棒棒
我跟德國關係很好 是誰嘛
看看林昶佐你不會覺得這動作很像是
綠營農耕隊的作風嗎

Today, we look at Chinese influence and infiltration into Taiwan. Our guest is Dr. Jeremy Hung - a researcher at INDSR (Institute for National Defense and Security Research). We discuss the role of proxy agents (ie. intermediaries) and how they may be helping China to influence media, impact politics, and strengthen its control over Taiwan.

China’s expanding influence into politics and societies around the world is a global issue, and this is The Taiwan Take.

Our host today is J.R. Wu - Chief of the Secretariat for INDSR in Taiwan. Wu is a former journalist with nearly two decades of media experience in the US and Asia. She has led news bureaus for Reuters and Dow Jones. At INDSR, Wu advises the institute’s leadership, handles international outreach with external stakeholders, and supports project management.

Donate to us at Patreon http://patreon.com/Taiwan
Follow us on Twitter @ghostislandme

SHOW CREDIT

Host - J.R. Wu

Producer / Editor - Emily Y. Wu (Twitter @emilyywu)
Researcher - Sam Robbins (Twitter @helloitissam)
Production Support - Allison Chan
Brand Design - Thomas Lee

Production Company - Ghost Island Media
MB01OULUDHINHEJ

https://ghostisland.media