這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。(加拿大法院鏈接在此:https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8)
這位法王的桃色事件,我是幾年前才聽到。但,藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞,我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過,也有一些活佛跟她表白。(這不只是她,其他地方我也聽過不少)
這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。
很多時候發生這種事情,信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇,或者說她們也精神病,或者說她們撒謊。
我不排除有這種可能性,但,多過一位,甚至多位出來指證的時候,我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。
大寶法王的桃色事件,最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒,第二位是香港的女出家人,現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。
對大寶法王信徒來說,這一次的比較麻煩,因為是有孩子的。(關於有孩子的,我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時,就有聽聞)
如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA,這對法王和他的信徒來說,會很尷尬和矛盾,因為做或不做,都死。
你若問我,我覺得『人數是有力量的』,同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來,是不出奇的。
我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒,如果你們真的愛佛教,先別說批判,但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議,你是間接害了佛教。
(下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容,當中有很多細節。)
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
F. Delay / Prejudice
CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).
[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.
[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.
[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.
[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.
BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.
[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.
[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.
[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.
[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.
[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.
[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.
[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.
[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.
[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.
[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.
[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.
[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:
a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;
b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;
c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;
d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.
[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.
[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.
[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.
[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:
I will definitely find a way to meet her
And you
Remember to take care of yourself if something happens
[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.
[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.
[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.
[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.
[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.
[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:
3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person
(a) is married to another person, or
(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and
(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or
(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.
[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).
[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.
[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.
[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.
[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.
[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.
[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.
[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.
[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.
[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.
[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.
[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:
[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.
[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:
1. Shelter:
(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?
(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?
(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?
2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:
(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?
(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?
(c) What were their feelings toward each other?
(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?
(e) Did they eat their meals together?
(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?
(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?
3. Services:
What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:
(a) preparation of meals;
(b) washing and mending clothes;
(c) shopping;
(d) household maintenance; and
(e) any other domestic services?
4. Social:
(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?
(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?
5. Societal:
What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?
6. Support (economic):
(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?
(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?
(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?
7. Children:
What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?
[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).
[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:
[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.
[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.
[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.
[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:
[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.
[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:
a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.
b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.
c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.
d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.
e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.
f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.
g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.
[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.
[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.
[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.
[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).
[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.
[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.
[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.
[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.
[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.
[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.
[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.
[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:
[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.
[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.
[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.
[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:
[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.
[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:
[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …
[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.
[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.
F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.
[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.
[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.
[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.
[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.
[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.
[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.
[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.
[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.
CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.
[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.
[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.
“Master Elwood”
同時也有3部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過9萬的網紅Hak Me,也在其Youtube影片中提到,#farfetchunboxing #敗家 #購物 Information: Farfetch Top Sale Link: https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAs Extra 20% off sale items Code: JAN20 Valid Until: 29 Febru...
low threshold 在 媽媽監督核電廠聯盟 Facebook 的最佳貼文
輻射傷害的防護基本理念: ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable),受曝劑量越低越好的合理抑低原則。
在輻射傷害防護的範疇內,總的來說,LNT(Linear-Non-Threshold)模式對於高劑量、高強度的輻射暴露的情況相對來說,更加的適用。在一般日常生活的狀態來說,避免輻射傷害,普遍採取 ALARA( As Low As Reasonably Achievable),也就是越低越好的合理抑低原則,這是人類關於游離輻射防護的基本理念。
ALARA( As Low As Reasonably Achievable; 越低越好的合理抑低 )原則也是美國能源部國家核子保安總署(DOE/NNSA)輻射 緊急事件支援及訓練中心(REAC/TS)出版之「The Medical Aspects of Radiation Incidents (台灣翻譯為:輻射傷害醫療處置)」手冊內容中所提及的輻射防護基本理念。
“ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) is the underlying philosophy associated with protecting people from ionizing radiation.
It basically means that one should not unnecessarily expose themselves to radiation without the benefit outweighing the risk.
Time, distance, andshielding are widely considered to be the primary
concerns. At REAC/TS, we like to add a fourth item to the list - quantity. All four of these concepts are used concurrently with the others. "
其基本意涵是 : 一個人應該避免不必要且無利益的輻射 曝露風險(這裡指的是非醫療性質的輻射暴露。任何輻射暴露都會造成傷害,但在治療重大疾病的時候,兩害相權取其輕,接受有限度且嚴格控管的輻射照射將體內惡性病變組織破壞,阻止其增生、擴散惡化的潛在利益大於輻射照射所引起的傷害的醫療應用案例,不屬於這裡所指的“不必要且無利益的輻射曝露風險”的範疇)。
此外,有報導指出:“...... 在日本的實際研究案例中,「餵飲氘水佔1/3的水,經過1個禮拜,老鼠腦部組織裡的氫被替換掉,老鼠變得眼睛上吊,有攻擊性,一直囓咬鐵籠的鐵網,反覆地昏睡或暴躁。」東京工業大學理工特任教授入口紀男(Norio Iriguchi),透過老鼠實驗,提醒福島氚污染水的危害。
入口紀男教授是日本核磁共振學會委員,透過上述實驗鼠的核磁共振影像,解說老鼠腦部組織內的氫被氘替換之後,所發生的變化。「左邊有點突出的是嗅腦(嗅覺發達中樞),右下突起的部份是延髓開端。目前只有腦部明顯地浮腫了。」
福島核災後,產生大量輻射污染水,其中氚因為無法用過濾去除,又稱為氚污染水。多位專家警告,氚污染水的危害,不只是體內輻射被曝,還有在體內被當成氫嵌入到蛋白質等組織的問題。而入口紀男(用有同樣效果的氘做)的實驗,具體呈現後者的狀況。
「氚在體內被當成氫嵌入」是什麼意思呢?擁有近40年的放射線治療經驗、北海道癌症中心名譽院長西尾正道詳細解釋道:「氚在人體內會被當成氫來代謝。人體有62%是水(H2O),氚會被當成氫來結合,在種種構成人體的高分子化合物的化學式裡也一樣。」
「氚因為有這樣和物質相結合的性質,在體內造成長期被曝。用醫學實驗,可以證明氚會被當成氫攝入到細胞核內。構成DNA的基因的4個鹽基,是靠氫來結合,換成氚進去的話(失去結合力),鹽基化學式產生變化,遺傳情報也會改變。導致健康上的實際損害。」而當被攝入的氚衰變成氦時,也會損傷細胞( http://www.inaco.co.jp/hiroshima_2_demo/pdf/20140103_tori_A4.pdf )。
對此,西尾正道等專家批判:「不能說自然界本來就有而不考慮,原本自然界裡氚的最大來源就是核試爆跟核電,排放標準也是為了沸水式原子爐把氚排到海裡而制定的,並不是因為有在科學上醫學上檢討健康被害而決定的。」「因為距離極近,即便氚的放射線弱,仍會相當程度地傷害DNA。」
又,氚水的化學式是HTO,因為氚很容易和生物體內的碳結合,成為有機結合型氚(Organically Bound Tritium、簡稱為OBT),跟氚水相比,後者滯留體內時間為20~50倍,被染色體等人體重要部份攝取。「氚水被放流後,經生物攝取變成有機結合型氚,人類去吃這些生物,便會蓄積在體內。」在核食檢測上,有機結合型氚的檢測程序,又比普通的氚來得複雜。
氚,被日本諾貝爾物理學獎得主小柴昌俊,與馬克斯威爾獎(美國物理學會頒發)得主長谷川晃,稱之為劇毒。
福島核電廠在災後,因為會不斷放出有放射性的蒸氣等污染,入口紀男比喻為「國土百萬年的惡夢」。而這惡夢除了往大氣的污染,還因為地下水流經,每天產生3-400噸的輻射污染水。
在日本政府規劃的輻射污染水處理方案裡,海放是成本最低的方法,比起地下埋設等耗資千億日圓以上的方法,海放只要17~34億日圓。另一方面民間、在地漁業團體與鄰國,持強烈反對的立場。....."
也有多項相關的醫學研究報告指出:
A 1961 experiment showed that mice dosed with 21.5 μCi/g of Cs-137 had a 50% fatality within 30 days (implying an LD50 of 245 μg/kg).
A similar experiment in 1972 showed that when dogs are subjected to a whole body burden of 3800 μCi/kg (140 MBq/kg, or approximately 44 μg/kg) of caesium-137 (and 950 to 1400 rads), they die within 33 days, while animals with half of that burden all survived for a year.
Important researches have shown a remarkable concentration of 137Cs in the exocrine cells of the pancreas, which are those most affected by cancer.
In 2003, in autopsies performed on 6 children dead in the polluted area near Chernobyl where they also reported a higher incidence of pancreatic tumors, Bandazhevsky found a concentration of 137Cs 40-45 times higher than in their liver, thus demonstrating that pancreatic tissue is a strong accumulator and secretor in the intestine of radioactive cesium.
一項重要的醫學研究發現,人體胰腺外分泌細胞中所聚積的137Cs濃度非常高,而胰腺外分泌細胞是受癌症影響最大的人體細胞。
在2003年由Bandazhevsky研究團隊,對六名生活在靠近車諾比核災污染區附近的兒童的屍體進行醫學檢驗解剖。
解剖研究發現這六名兒童患胰臟惡性腫瘤的比率,比一般正常狀態下來的更高,經檢驗,研究團隊發現這六名兒童胰臟中所含的Cs-137濃度,竟然是肝臟中所含Cs-137濃度的40-45倍之多。研究證實在人體內Cs-137最容易聚積在胰臟內。
胰臟癌是指胰臟細胞發生癌變而產生的腫瘤,這些腫瘤細胞具有侵犯其他組織的能力。胰臟癌很少發生在40歲以下的病人,半數以上的患者超過70歲。
此外,1961年的一項實驗發現對老鼠注射21.5 μCi/g 濃度的Cs-137,在30天之內有一半的受試老鼠死亡,這項實驗的結果等同於半至死劑量為0.000245公克(也就是百萬分之245公克),所謂半至死劑量指的是指在固定濃度下,暴露一定時間(通常1~4 小時)後,觀察14 天, 能使試驗動物組群半數(50 %)死亡的濃度。
在1972 年有另外一項類似的實驗, 對受試驗的狗群注射3800 μCi/kg (140 MBq/kg, or approximately 44 μg/kg,大約百萬分之44公克濃度)Cs-137,這群受試的狗在33天內全數死亡,而另一群接受一半劑量的受試狗群,則可以存活到為期一年。
從上述的那些實際醫學研究例證,包括了比較適用於LNT模式的狀態,以及一般日常生活環境下遭遇到低劑量但是長期輻射暴露累積下來的狀態。ALARA( As Low As Reasonably Achievable; 合理抑低 )原則在兩種狀態下通通一體適用。
參考資料:
https://orise.orau.gov/resources/reacts/documents/medical-aspects-of-radiation-incidents.pdf
http://www.inaco.co.jp/hiroshima_2_demo/pdf/20140103_tori_A4.pdf
https://e-info.org.tw/node/221554
^Moskalev, Yu. I. (1961). "Biological Effects of Cesium-137". In Lebedinskiĭ, A. V.; Moskalev, Yu. I. (eds.). Distribution, Biological Effects, and Migration of Radioactive Isotopes. Translation Series. United States Atomic Energy Commission (published April 1974). p. 220. AEC-tr-7512.
^ H.C. Redman; et al. (1972). "Toxicity of 137-CsCl in the Beagle. Early Biological Effects". Radiation Research. 50 (3): 629–648. Bibcode:1972RadR...50..629R. doi:10.2307/3573559. JSTOR 3573559. PMID 5030090.
^ Nelson A , Ullberg S, Kristoffersson H, Ronnback C (1961). "Distribution of Radiocesium in Mice". Acta Radiologica. 55, 5 (5): 374–384.
doi:10.3109/00016926109175132. PMID 13728254.
^ Bandazhevsky Y.I. (2003). "Chronic Cs-137 incorporation in children's organs". Swiss Med. Wkly. 133 (35–36): 488–90. PMID 14652805.
<3
low threshold 在 Dairy & Cream Facebook 的最佳解答
Starting the day with these nutty granola from @clookieslactationbakes which specializes in lactation bakes such as brownies and cookies. What I like is the variety of flavors such as cranberry pistachio or sea salt caramel for the cookies and Nutella or Speculoos for the brownies.
I would recommend the granola as it is much less sweeter than the brownies or cookies. Did not manage to follow the eating guide strictly partly due to my low sugar threshold and that’s probably why my milk supply hasn’t changed much. But nonetheless these treats are definitely legitimate indulgences to enjoy for any lactating mummies!
low threshold 在 Hak Me Youtube 的精選貼文
#farfetchunboxing #敗家 #購物
Information:
Farfetch Top Sale Link: https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAs
Extra 20% off sale items
Code: JAN20
Valid Until: 29 February 2020 2am (Hong Kong Time)
T&Cs: Sale items only. Unlimited use per customer. Brand restrictions apply. Minimum order value threshold applies (HKD 1,100 / CNY 1,000 / USD 150 / EUR 150).
Products Featured:
What I Got:-
⭐️ Versace Jeans Couture Sneakers https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAt
⭐️ Converse Low Top Trainers https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAu
⭐️ Phillipe Model Sneakers https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAv
⭐️ Adidas Track Jacket https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAw
⭐️ Marc Jacobs Tote https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAx
Other Picks:-
⭐️ Marc Jacobs Shopper Tote https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAy
⭐️ Marc Jacobs Tote https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAz
⭐️ Karl Lagerfeld Tote https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAA
⭐️ Tod’s Tote https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAB
⭐️ Proenza Schouler Mini Crossbody Bag https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAC
⭐️ Proenza Schouler PS1 Tiny https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAD
⭐️ Marc Jacobs Softshot 21 Bag https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAE
⭐️ Marc Jacobs Jelly Glitter Snapshot Bag https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAF
⭐️ Off White Backpack https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAG
⭐️ Moschino Backpack https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAH
⭐️ Tory Burch Flats https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAJ
⭐️ Salvatore Ferragamo Mules https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAK
⭐️ By Far Ankle Boots https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAL
⭐️ Tory Burch Wallet https://rsnap.it/d-TDDHAM
⭐️Brand Restrictions⭐️
Acne Studios, Amiri, Bottega Veneta, Brunello Cucinelli, Brunello Cucinelli Kids, Burberry, Burberry Kids, Chanel Pre-Owned, Christian Dior Pre-Owned, Christian Dior x Susan Caplan, Fendi, Fendi Eyewear, Fendi Kids, Hermes Pre-Owned, Louis Vuitton Pre-Owned, Maison Margiela, MM6 Maison Margiela, Miu Miu, Oscar de La Renta, Prada, Red Valentino, Stella McCartney, Stella McCartney Kids, Valentino, Saint Laurent, Balenciaga, Balenciaga Kids, Thom Browne, DOLCE & GABBANA, SS20 & CONTINUITY, MONCLER, Moncler C, MONCLER EYEWEAR, MONCLER GAMME BLEU, MONCLER GAMME ROUGE, MONCLER GRENOBLE, MONCLER KIDS, MONCLER SACAI, MONCLER X AMI, MONCLER X ERDEM, MONCLER X GREG LAUREN, Moncler X Off-White, MONCLER X ROLLING STONES, MONCLER Y, Red Valentino
Follow Me:-
? My Instagram: @iamhakme
? My Facebook: www.facebook.com/hakmebeauty
? Blog: www.hakmebeauty.com
? Weibo: https://www.weibo.com/iamhakme
? 小紅書: http://bit.ly/2W2LcSx
? Shop My Looks: https://goxi.ps/iamhakme
Follow Hakme Beauty:-
?黑咪店地址: https://www.hakmebeauty.com/store-locations/
?黑咪店路線圖: http://bit.ly/2W3pUZr
?黑咪店Online: https://shop.hakmebeauty.com
?黑咪店Instagram: @hakmebeauty
?黑咪店Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/hakmebeautyltd/
*************************************************************
Disclaimer: This video is created and edited by me. All the content are my own thoughts. As always, all opinions are based on my experience and honesty. Products are either purchased by me or for those which are sent by PR are marked with an “*”. For any collaboration with brands which involves monetary payment, “Ad” will be in the video so that you are aware of the collaboration. Some of the links used above might be affiliate links and please be aware that I will earn a % of commission if you decide to buy through the affiliate links.
low threshold 在 Ding Ding Youtube 的最佳解答
❁❁ WATCH ME ❁❁
謝謝大家再次收看我的不專業分享?
可能是你看過最短的outfit video??
其實我私下穿得和大家一樣,以舒服為主便算了!
但如何在小細節中可以和別人不同?
我整理了幾個小小tips!! (可能大家早已知道?)
也分享我最愛的海外購物網,因為今次實在太平了。
既然我已經用原價買了,所以折扣就留給你們享用吧?
踏入年尾,什麼都試試~不然怎知道自己有什麼不足✌?
養生片、美容片、生活片都會拍的!
歡迎留言和我交流交流✍?
下條片再見啦~
Recommended Similar Items:
▶ Stand Studio Shearling Jacket:
https://rsnap.it/32zXU
▶ Fendi FF Felt Bag:
https://rsnap.it/32zXV
▶ Tory Burch Perry Bifold Wallet:
https://rsnap.it/32zXW
▶ Common Projects Tournament Low Super Sneakers: https://rsnap.it/32zXX
▶ RE/DONE unfinished hem tapered jeans:
https://rsnap.it/32zXY
▶ CHLOÉ Nile tote bag:
https://rsnap.it/32zXZ
▶ MM6 MAISON MARGIELA Chunky Heel Ankle Boots: https://rsnap.it/32zXa
▶ MAKAVELIC Zipped Bomber Jacket:
https://rsnap.it/32zXb
▨ Featured Items:
▶ BURBERRY Embroidered Logo Cotton Oversized T-shirt: https://rsnap.it/32zXc
▶ BALENCIAGA BB mini wallet:
https://rsnap.it/32zXd
♪ Farfetch Black Friday Offer ♪
▶Sale up to 50% off and extra 30% off seasonal sale with promo code
▶Link: https://rsnap.it/32zXe
▶Code: FFX30
▶End: 14 December 2019, 5pm HKT
▶T&Cs: Unlimited use per customer. Applicable on sale items only. ▶Brand restrictions apply. Minimum threshold of HKD$1100
♡ Restricted brands ♡
Acne Studios, Amiri, BALENCIAGA, BALENCIAGA KIDS, Bottega Veneta, Brunello Cucinelli, Brunello Cucinelli Kids, Burberry, Burberry Kids, Chanel Pre-Owned, Christian Dior Pre-Owned, Christian Dior x Susan Caplan, Gucci, Fendi, Fendi Eyewear, Fendi Kids, Hermes Pre-Owned, Luis Vuitton Pre-Owned, Maison Margiela, MM6 Maison Margiela, Miu Miu, Oscar de La Renta, Prada, Red Valentino, RICK OWENS, RICK OWENS DRKSHDW, RICK OWENS LILIES, RICK OWENS x Veja, SACAI, Saint Laurent, Stella McCartney, Stella McCartney Kids, Thome Browne, Valentino
❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁
♡Instagram: instagram/ding_2
♡Online Shop: www.holydailyofficial.com
♡Facebook Page: fb.com/ding2craftstube
♡E-mail: [email protected]
❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁
Video INFO:
▶Filmed with a Sony α7R II(Sonnar T* FE 55 MM F1.8 ZA), Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II
▶Edited on Final Cut Pro & Adobe Premiere Pro(Mac)
❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁
This video was created and edited by Ding Ding.
FTC: This video is sponsored by Farfetch♡
low threshold 在 一二三渡辺 Youtube 的最佳貼文
今日お初です、
SSバイクばかりで遊びに来てくれました、
またこれからもよろしくね、
Kawasaki ninja ZX-10R (Ninjazettoeccsuten'arl) is a large-scale automatic operation two wheels of four strokes 998cc (motorcycle) that Kawasaki Heavy Industries manufactures and is putting on the market for the export market.
Outline
It was announced as a succession of ZX-9R who was the super-sports model of 1000cc class of Kawasaki till then in 2004. To correspond to combination (A lot of Malaysian specifications imported by 172kg/175ps and Japan are →164 horsepower to which some power has been downed by exhaust emissions regulations and the noise regulation) hard breaking, the backing torque limiter of MotoGP participation machine ZX-RR transfer is equipped with the body and the engine so that the power weight ratio may cut 1kg/ps for the first time as a car general and on the market. It is remarkable as the model of a suitable threat for the vehicle of four large manufacturer end departure in 1000cc super-sports class, and in the trial of the magazine and the journalist participation of the main each country participation, it is pointed out that the high reputation value and the good record are put and the adjustment of the detail doesn't boil down, and it is also true that rider's capability was often evaluated as a necessary model to get on and to digest. ZX-10R was a muffler of an orthodox type while both of CBR1000RR that had debuted in YZF-R1 and the same year when FMC had been done in 2004 central improvement mufflers had been adopted. It is said that the purpose of this is to lighten.
The former model's reflection or the overall balance is considered though it was restyled in 2
006.
* Review of engine (twice velocity generator abolition and crank mass 40%
increase, etc.)
* Complete improvement of chassis (Become a short as not seeming liter ss it called the swing arm shortening and result 1395mm according to the review of the frame rigidity balance, the caster angle review, and it wheelbase).
* Adoption of brake master cylinder of new shape (Change from an existing
horizontal to a radial pump).
* Adoption of projector headlight
* Adoption of central improvement muffler
It was chiefly changed. Taking Ts easiness to come basically became a model where flexibility was had both compared with the model it for the result and 2004.2005 years, was established of the impression that word of mouth said that it was inferior, and the total balance low also waited for the aspect and the threshold is high compared with the domestic production and others manufacturer, and fighting hard was compelled for the sales side. It is incontrovertible to take the delay a little compared with the rival car that has been improved for the balance on the street every year. However, after the model 2006, the actual horse-power is considerably improved often the thing won oppositely by reviewing the setting of the suspension of the total balance that touches the above-mentioned in the catalog value output though it is lower than the domestic production and others manufacturer.