【還原「物業帶動鐵路」的歷史時空】 #永續港鐵霸權 #7月專研
港鐵霸權一大核心就是長期壟斷「鐵路上蓋物業發展權」,今時今日香港土地問題走到如斯局面,與經常被吹噓為「國際成功模式」的「鐵路加物業」(Rail + Property) 不無關係,但服務大眾的鐵路公司搖身一變成為追求利潤的發展商,絕對不是一夕間發生的合理事情。「鐵路上蓋物業」的原意又與今日有沒有變化? 是次研究專題將會透過回顧過上千頁有關香港地下鐵發展的英國解密檔案,還原70年代「物業帶動鐵路」發展模式的源起及原意,將有助進一步理解現時逐漸扭曲的港鐵發展形態。
▌構思初現:初期鐵路物業的背景與概念
「以地養鐵」更早可以在日本找到相類似發展模式 (Murakami, J., & Gregory, K. I.,2012),然而最早「引進」香港的來源暫不可考。但從現有官方內部檔案中,可找到早於1970年交通諮詢委員會 (Transport Advisory Committee)提交的一份《集體運輸計劃總報告書》,報告中建議除了計劃興建已設計的4條鐵路路線,並分9期(nine distinct stages) 完成「理想」鐵路系統(preferred system)外,已有提及「發展上蓋物業」的構思。在報告提及鐵路系統的長期發展影響:
”Wherever subway systems have been built experience shows that property and land increase in value. This opens up the strong possibility that a part of the cost of providing station concourses could be met through arrangements which permit the private development of station superstructures and surrounds.”
當年報告所述,由於預視到鐵路系統的帶動下,當地物業及地價將會升值。因而報告提到有很大可能可以容許私人發展 (private development) 上蓋物業去補貼鐵路站的建設成本。值得注意的是,報告除了提出上蓋 (station superstructures)發展外,首次提到發展上蓋周邊 (surrounds) 的發展概念。可見,現時港鐵圈地/上蓋物業發展一早出現在早期鐵路系統構思之中。
70年代還有差點讓鐵路系統觸礁的財政艱難,更清晰定位鐵路中的「物業收益」有何功能。參考早期關於興建鐵路系統的英國解密檔案顯示,早於1972年,香港政府成立集體運輸臨時管理局(Mass Transit Railway Provisional Authority),打算先行興建較全面、工程單一批予日資財團(Japanese consortium)的早期系統(initial system),但後來石油危機爆發,日本經濟陷入危機,財團先是提出可否修訂興建成本價格上限由50億為60億,遭到管理局拒絕後則宣佈退出鐵路興建,檔案中可看到港英政府曾一度為此而與日資財團就賠償爭執,甚至有香港主要大班 (怡和除外) 都因財政理由反對繼續推展興建鐵路計劃。
當年港英內部評估1980年代交通系統會超負荷,即使鐵路系統已被日資延遲一年(have effectively delayed the MTR project for 12 months),連帶物料通賬的財政問題,但卻認為必須「頂硬上」,調整鐵路系統的財政預算、規模以及未來發展方向,於是臨急推出後來實現的修正早期系統 (Modified Initial System)。在1975年一份關於修正早期系統行政局內部文件,港英將會排除必要鐵路系統以外的多餘支出 (eliminate all expenditures not strictly necessary for resultant simpler system),不僅使整個鐵路規模「大縮水」,同時更建議以溢價債卷(Premium bond)作為融資措施,以及發展沿線上蓋物業(property development on lines)抵消(offset)財赤,皆為確保(safeguard)鐵路在任何情況下的財政可負擔性(the financial viability in any event),讓減少後規模的總興建成本能夠保持於49億的水平。可見,當初「鐵路加物業」發展的概念是在財政大緊縮的特定歷史脈絡生成,目的為防止鐵路興建所帶來財政不穩定情況的其中一法。
▌立業辟地:港鐵上蓋四小龍
直到1975年,為了確保鐵路系統的財政可負擔性以及應急儲備,集體運輸臨時管理局向政府申請批出四個鐵路上蓋物業的綜合發展權(comprehensive development)。而當時行政局內部討論中,一份十分詳細記錄有關批予集體運輸臨時管理局四個上蓋發展權的行政局文件顯示,最早期物業上蓋發展的具體情況:
—九龍灣車廠上蓋物業(現時德福花園):
當時除了作為首個利用鐵路車廠上蓋作物業發展的項目,而且亦成為物業上蓋住宅發展的先例,佔地165,800平方呎,打算興建大型屋苑,滿足18,000個人口的住宅需求。
—亞皆老站(即現今旺角站)上蓋物業(現時旺角中心第一期):
首個非鐵路站上蓋作物業發展,只是相鄰於(adjacent to) 鐵路站,為首個利用鐵路通風樓(ventilation shaft)的物業發展。
—金鐘站上蓋物業(現時海富中心):
佔地60,000平方呎的海富中心,當時金鐘站上蓋物業批地條例原來有列明非工業用途,包括興建酒店(non-industrial purposes which may include a hotel)。
—畢打/遮打站(即現今中環站)上蓋物業(Pedder/Chater)(現時環球中心):
當時批中環商業靚地予鐵路公司的理據明顯為商業利益最大化(maximum exploitation of the commercial possibilities),一來可以善用土地資源(物業建於鐵路站上蓋),二來物業及鐵路站同時興建,可以減少工程興建時發展阻礙(development disturbance)。
其後地鐵公司分別與恆隆、合和、長實多間發展商共合發展上述四個上蓋物業,作為「鐵路加物業」發展模式的雛型,當時內部估計以上物業收入將會佔地鐵公司總收益的20%。當年批出九龍灣車廠上蓋物業上公頃的市區發展土地,整體政府部門都相當歡迎,認為可以平衡當區公屋主導的房屋格局,與及能夠為該區提供額外設施的機會,甚至具體要求屋苑內有至少10戶1車位的發展條件 (XCC(75)52)。此四幅最早批出的上蓋物業發展,從通風樓到車廠、由單一大廈到綜合發展,已是奠定了日後鐵路物業發展的主要選址方式與發展類型。
▌誰主上蓋物業?
這份行政局文件亦載有早期鐵路用地發展權的重要批地原則(principles to be adopted in respect to land grant to Mass Transmit Railway Corporation),是還原物業上蓋發展歷史一份重要參照。文件清楚列出,上蓋物業不一定是地鐵公司「囊中物」,鐵路物業發展權是否批出,或批給誰,完全是政府「話事」 (the grant of comprehensive development rights on land affected by railway installations will be discretionary)。
文件亦同時指出,程序上地鐵公司需要先向政府申請(formally apply)批地,政府可以基於實際考慮 (practical consideration) 決定如何運用這些鐵路上蓋用地的發展潛力 (for government to decide on how to dispose of any development potential remaining in the land over and above its Mass Transit usage) 。換言之,港鐵的上蓋發展絕對可以由政府主導及決定,包括根據現時的實際考慮(公營房屋供應長期落後及不足)用作興建公屋,不一定用於與發展商合作興建私樓供港鐵公司利潤最大化。
▌物業收益應急而起
70年代尾,鐵路系統打算擴建至荃灣區。翻查1978年有關鐵路擴建荃灣(Mass Transit Railway extension to Tsuen Wan)的行政局文件顯示,當時除了提及車廠上蓋物業發展的選址爭議外,亦有提及港英對發展上蓋物業的財政原則。物業發展的收入原本並不用作補貼鐵路成本 (revenue from property development was not originally envisaged as being used as a means of financing the capital cost of the railway itself),而是作為應急儲備及改善現金流(contingency reserve and to improve its cash flow)。而且更補充荃灣車廠上蓋物業發展的剩餘收入,可以用作應對以下4個應急情況:
—抵消「超支」建築成本(offset any excess construction costs)
—抵消收入財赤(offset any revenue deficiencies)
—加速還債(accelerate loan repayments)
—提早鐵路公司對港英政府的投資分股息的日子(bring forward the date when the Corporation begins to pay the Government as share holder on behalf of the public dividends on its investment)
可見,港英多次強調,鐵路上蓋物業收入為確保財政可負擔性(viability)及應急(contingency),而非像現時政府愈來愈恆常化送地予港鐵興建私樓賺錢。
引述法國城市學者Aveline-Dubach整理地鐵公司至其後港鐵自1980至2016年收入可見,明顯看見90年代末東涌綫及其後的將軍澳線所帶動的物業發展收入比例愈來愈重,已經超越鐵路票務收入,現時每年物業收益足足佔港鐵總收入四成。可見,透過重現當初的批地原意,更能突顯漸走向扭曲的港鐵發展形態,形成尾大不掉之勢。
▌賣樓補車費:明言物業發展利潤補貼車費
港鐵不應用上蓋物業賺盡的討論,亦見於地下鐵路公司條例的立法階段的重要討論。一份1975年討論地下鐵路公司草案(Mass Transit Railway Corporation Bill)的行政局文件,提及鐵路公司需要按照審慎商業原則 (prudent commercial principles)。鐵路作為公共交通工具,不應最大化其投資回報 (maximize its return on investment),只應賺取足夠(enough)收入作營運開支。
文件亦可見當年政府就發展上蓋物業項目的收益,會清晰公開回應指物業發展可為鐵路帶來的額外利潤,以維持一個「保守的車費政策」 (assist the railway by providing extra revenue to maintain a conservative fares policy)。比起今天已經與物業收益「脫勾」的「可加可減」車費制度,當日港英政府明顯認為物業收益有助更平宜的車費定價。
在40多年前的歷史時空,當初「鐵路加物業」發展模式跟現時已經不可同日而語,發展上蓋物業不論就其發展型態、財政狀況、規劃模式、補貼原意,明顯有其特定的歷史脈絡及原意。是次研究專題透過還原早期興建地鐵的歷史討論,帶出現時不斷被政府吹奏作為「國際級典範」—港鐵發展模式,並不是一套千秋萬世的發展方程式。
參考資料
1971 FCO 40 358 Construction of an underground railway system in Hong Kong
1975 FCO 40 658 Construction of an underground railway system in Hong Kong
1975 FCO 40 659 Construction of an underground railway system in Hong Kong
1975 FCO 40 660 Construction of an underground railway system in Hong Kong
1978 FCO 40 974 Construction of an underground railway system in Hong Kong
Aveline-Dubach, N., & Blandeau, G. (2019). The political economy of transit value capture: The changing business model of the MTRC in Hong Kong. Urban Studies, 56(16), 3415-3431.
Murakami, J., & Gregory, K. I. (2012). Transit value capture: New town codevelopment models and land market updates in Tokyo and Hong Kong. Value capture and land policies, 285-320.
研究自主 月捐撐起最新專研系列:https://liber-research.com/support-us/
FPS ID:5390547
HSBC PayMe 捐款支持:https://bit.ly/32aoOMn
戶口號碼:匯豐銀行 640-198305-001 (LIBER RESEARCH COMMUNITY (HK) COMPANY LIMITED)
義工招募:https://bit.ly/2SbbyT3
同時也有12部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過14萬的網紅SARAH & JASON,也在其Youtube影片中提到,Everyone's talking about it the last couple of weeks Who wants a $10 million flat for free? I'm sure everyone wants to know where it is, what it look...
「j property」的推薦目錄:
- 關於j property 在 本土研究社 Liber Research Community Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於j property 在 Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於j property 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於j property 在 SARAH & JASON Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於j property 在 SARAH & JASON Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於j property 在 BrandonTan91 Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於j property 在 J Property株式会社丨投資收租專區 - Facebook 的評價
- 關於j property 在 J Property株式会社- 日本不動產有限公司 - Facebook 的評價
- 關於j property 在 J Property 株式会社 - YouTube 的評價
- 關於j property 在 j property好唔好的推薦與評價,YOUTUBE 的評價
- 關於j property 在 J Property總部在大阪難波,是日本當地地產 大阪市中心 ... 的評價
j property 在 Facebook 的最佳貼文
消費者想要佔金融機構便宜?門都沒有.................. :'(
現在覺得好康進去搶申請,人一多了,銀行就會大降各種優惠的:https://tw.appledaily.com/property/20210704/TCNDJDCK55G7LL7BNNR45QHA7U/
j property 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最佳解答
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”
j property 在 SARAH & JASON Youtube 的最佳貼文
Everyone's talking about it the last couple of weeks
Who wants a $10 million flat for free?
I'm sure everyone wants to know where it is, what it looks like, how big it is… is it any good?
You have it, Grand Central.
And just in case you want to get (have a chance to get it hahaha)
https://register.vaccinationluckydraw.hk/tc/index.html
SARAH https://www.instagram.com/rahrahsong/?hl=en
JASON https://www.instagram.com/chanjason_/?hl=en
#打疫苗 #抽樓 #HouseTour #凱滙
#做業主 #上車 #香港樓市
#疫苗 #復必泰 #科興 #抽獎 #送樓
#打疫苗抽獎 #打疫苗送樓
#觀塘 #千萬新樓
#Vaccination #GrandCentral #KwunTong
#Lottery #LuckyDraw
#Landlord #FirstProperty #HongKongProperty
#Biontech #Sinovac #FreeFlat #VaccinationIncentives
#VaccineLottery #GrandPrize
j property 在 SARAH & JASON Youtube 的最佳貼文
呢一期都算係全城熱話 一定係打完疫苗有機會贏千萬嘅新樓
可能大家同我哋一樣咁八卦
所以就衝左上去睇吓我哋嚟緊會抽中嘅呢曾樓有幾正???
呢個笑話我哋已經講咗成個星期... 講極都唔厭?
贏到呢層樓嘅機會比中六合彩大好多
諗吓,發下夢,氹吓自己開心都幾好☺️
祝大家週末愉快,父親節快樂❤️
登記抽樓
https://register.vaccinationluckydraw.hk/tc/index.html
SARAH https://www.instagram.com/rahrahsong/?hl=en
JASON https://www.instagram.com/chanjason_/?hl=en
#打疫苗 #抽樓 #HouseTour #凱滙
#做業主 #上車 #香港樓市
#疫苗 #復必泰 #科興 #抽獎 #送樓
#打疫苗抽獎 #打疫苗送樓
#觀塘 #千萬新樓
#Vaccination #GrandCentral #KwunTong
#Lottery #LuckyDraw
#Landlord #FirstProperty #HongKongProperty
#Biontech #Sinovac #FreeFlat #VaccinationIncentives
#VaccineLottery #GrandPrize
j property 在 BrandonTan91 Youtube 的最讚貼文
The Legendary Lake Trio are back again on the day Barboach has a spotlight hour too, as such, we tried hunting for both a hundo lake trio and shiny Barboach at the same time during this spotlight hour.
Join me as I travel, eat and play Pokémon GO the way a local trainer would in their own country and city. Visiting one country and one city at at time through Pokémon GO.
Subscribe if you would like to watch my Pokémon GO travel adventure as I visit different countries, cities and communities, https://tinyurl.com/y65jruw2
Social:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/brandontan91/
TWITTER: https://twitter.com/brandontan91
Vlogging Set-Up:
Camera - Sony RX 100 Mark 7
Mic - Rode VideoMicro
Screen Recorder - iPad Mini 5
Pokémon is Copyright Gamefreak, Nintendo and The Pokémon Company 2001-2016
All images and names owned and trademarked by Nintendo, Niantic, The Pokémon Company, and Gamefreak are property of their respective owners.
j property 在 J Property株式会社- 日本不動產有限公司 - Facebook 的推薦與評價
我們J Property日本不動產 每天✔️百裡挑一:從數十甚至過百個物件中挑選最佳物業✔️即日確認:專業團隊即時確認物業、租客資料✔️緊貼市場:追蹤日本市場,第一時間 ... ... <看更多>
j property 在 J Property 株式会社 - YouTube 的推薦與評價
我們總公司在大阪難波,東京,福岡,名古屋全都有公司,所有收費跟日本當地地產完全一樣,所有資源都是直接連接日本,收費,手續,流程,全跟日本當地地產一樣。 ... <看更多>
j property 在 J Property株式会社丨投資收租專區 - Facebook 的推薦與評價
J Property 株式會社 總部在大阪,首批在港澳開托市場的日本不動產公司 口碑第一,100%好評,因為我們只找值得您買的物業 https://jproperty.co/ —————————————————— ... <看更多>