【好人經濟限時優惠預告】
聽日好人經濟嘅限時優惠包括:新合作商戶「自在襌繞」嘅襌繞課程、鳥取食品公司嘅醃魚套裝、Shing Sky嘅冷凍食品、熱血Marketplace各種課程。
聽日(22/9)中午十二點至兩點,記得留意【好人經濟】
※產品介紹請參閱附加圖片
——————————
熱血時報免費台直播:https://bit.ly/2FFJV1m
好人經濟節目限時優惠:https://bit.ly/33K3qxG
熱血網店:https://bit.ly/3hIvs1H
Zeiton好人經濟專頁:https://bit.ly/3iLI9tP
===============
自在禪繞
1.
禪繞初體驗 十月班
自選日期:2021年10月7日(星期四) 或 2021年10月21日(星期四)
上課時間:晚上7:30-9:00
上課地點:大角咀區(詳細地址於成功報名後通知)
源自美國的禪繞藝術(Zentangle)
在繪畫過程中能令人享受當下的專注和平靜,達至紓壓效果
藉以撫慰城市滿有壓力的弱小心靈。
熱血Marketplace價:$330
限時優惠價:$280
===============
鳥取食品公司
1.
鳥取食品精選 - 一夜干系列 三包裝 (池魚、青花魚、縞花魚)
套裝包括以下醃魚各一包:
池魚一夜干 1包 300g
青花魚一夜干 1包 300g
縞花魚一夜干 1包 500g
熱血Marketplace價:$238
限時優惠價:$218
2.
鳥取食品精選 - 一夜干系列 自選兩併裝
自選兩併選項包括(可重複選項):
池魚一夜干 一包 300g
青花魚一夜干 一包 300g
縞花魚一夜干 一包 500g
熱血Marketplace價:$140起
限時優惠價:$130起
3.
鳥取食品精選 - 單一口味照燒醃魚3件裝
單一口味照燒醃魚選項包括:
照燒目拔魚
照燒馬鮫魚
照燒油甘魚
照燒銀三文魚
可選擇加配鳥取一夜干精選魚,選項包括:
A:不加配
B:+$65(原價:$70)加配池魚一夜干 一包 300g
C:+$65(原價:$70)加配青花魚一夜干 一包 300g
D:+$88(原價:$98)加配縞花魚一夜干 一包 500g
熱血Marketplace價:$200起
限時優惠價:$180起
4.
鳥取食品精選 - 單一口味西京漬醃魚3件裝
單一口味西京漬魚選項包括:
西京漬目拔魚
西京漬馬鮫魚
西京漬油甘魚
西京漬銀三文魚
可選擇加配鳥取一夜干精選魚,選項包括:
A:不加配
B:+$65(原價:$70)加配池魚一夜干 一包 300g
C:+$65(原價:$70)加配青花魚一夜干 一包 300g
D:+$88(原價:$98)加配縞花魚一夜干 一包 500g
熱血Marketplace價:$200起
限時優惠價:$180起
5.
鳥取食品精選 - 照燒風味醃魚
套裝包括:
照燒銀三文魚
照燒油甘魚
照燒馬鮫魚
照燒目拔魚
可選擇加配鳥取一夜干精選魚,選項包括:
A:不加配
B:+$65(原價:$70)加配池魚一夜干 一包 300g
C:+$65(原價:$70)加配青花魚一夜干 一包 300g
D:+$88(原價:$98)加配縞花魚一夜干 一包 500g
熱血Marketplace價︰$280起
限時優惠價︰$250起
6.
鳥取食品精選 - 西京漬醃魚
套裝包括:
西京漬銀三文魚
西京漬油甘魚
西京漬馬鮫魚
西京漬目拔魚
可選擇加配鳥取一夜干精選魚,選項包括:
A:不加配
B:+$65(原價:$70)加配池魚一夜干 一包 300g
C:+$65(原價:$70)加配青花魚一夜干 一包 300g
D:+$88(原價:$98)加配縞花魚一夜干 一包 500g
熱血Marketplace價︰$280起
限時優惠價︰$250起
7.
鳥取食品精選 - 酒糟醃魚 併 一夜干
套裝包括:
酒糟銀三文魚
酒糟目拔魚
縞花魚一夜干
可選擇加配鳥取一夜干精選魚,選項包括:
A:不加配
B:+$65(原價:$70)加配池魚一夜干 一包 300g
C:+$65(原價:$70)加配青花魚一夜干 一包 300g
D:+$88(原價:$98)加配縞花魚一夜干 一包 500g
熱血Marketplace價︰$238
限時優惠價︰$218
8.
鳥取食品精選 - 雜錦醃魚套裝
套裝包括:
酒糟銀三文魚
酒糟目拔魚
西京漬馬鮫魚
西京漬目拔魚
照燒銀三文魚
照燒油甘魚
可選擇加配鳥取一夜干精選魚,選項包括:
A:不加配
B:+$65(原價:$70)加配池魚一夜干 一包 300g
C:+$65(原價:$70)加配青花魚一夜干 一包 300g
D:+$88(原價:$98)加配縞花魚一夜干 一包 500g
熱血Marketplace價︰$400
限時優惠價︰$378
===============
Shing Sky
1.
和牛漢堡 牛小排扒 併 銀鱈魚扒
套裝包括:
伊稻田 和牛漢堡 130G X2
美國安格斯牛小排扒300g x1
銀鱈魚扒 200G (2塊裝) X1
熱血Marketplace價︰$220
限時優惠價︰$200
2.
J.FARM 無激素雞扒 併 J.FARM 水牛城雞中翼 套裝
套裝包括:
J.FARM 泰國無激素雞扒 1KG
J.FARM 水牛城雞中翼 1KG
熱血Marketplace價:$230
限時優惠價:$210
3.
台灣老虎堂黑糖芝麻湯圓 4包裝
套裝包括:
台灣老虎堂黑糖芝麻湯圓 200g x4
熱血Marketplace價:$148
限時優惠價:$128
4.
台灣老虎堂黑糖流沙湯圓 4包裝
套裝包括:
台灣老虎堂黑糖流沙湯圓 200g x4
熱血Marketplace價:$148
限時優惠價:$128
5.
台灣老虎堂 黑糖芝麻湯圓2包 併 黑糖流沙湯圓2包
套裝包括:
台灣老虎堂黑糖芝麻湯圓 200g x2
台灣老虎堂黑糖流沙湯圓 200g x2
熱血Marketplace價:$148
限時優惠價:$128
6.
梅肉片烏冬套裝
美國梅肉片 200g x2
真打讚歧烏冬1.25kg x1
熱血Marketplace價︰$176
限時優惠價︰$160
7.
肥牛梅肉片烏冬套裝
套裝包括:
美國肩胛肥牛片 200g x1
美國梅肉片 200g x1
真打讚歧烏冬1.25kg x1
熱血Marketplace價︰$182
限時優惠價:$170
8.
Shing Sky 精選急凍牛肉 自選兩併套裝
套裝包括:
自由選擇 兩款 Shing Sky急凍牛肉產品(可重複選項)
選項包括:
漢堡扒 150g x6
伊稻田 和牛漢堡 130G x4
伊稻田 芝士和牛漢堡 130G x4
英國草飼牛仔骨 1磅裝 x2
美國安格斯牛小排扒300g x2
美國安格斯牛扒280g x2
美國安格斯牛小排片(方碟) x2
美國肩胛肥牛片 200G x2
熱血Marketplace價:$232起
限時優惠價:$192起
9.
Shing Sky - 自選CP食品 自選兩款組合
套裝包括:
自由選擇 兩款 Shing Sky CP食品產品(可重複選項)
Shing Sky CP食品 包括:
CP辛辣味香炸雞翼鎚 230g (約5隻) x3包 (缺貨)
CP香烤蜜糖雞中翼 230g (約8-9隻) x3包
CP原味香味雞球 230g x3包
CP香辣炸雞中翼(單骨) 1kg (約35-45隻) x1包
CP香辣雞中翼 1kg (約35隻) x1包
CP雞軟骨 1kg x1包
熱血Marketplace價:$188起
限時優惠價:$168起
===============
My Little Planet Creative Workshop
1.
流體畫工作坊
上課日期:逢星期日開班
課堂時數:一小時
確實上課時間及地址將於購買後由My Little Planet聯絡及安排。
熱血Marketplace價:$350
限時優惠價:$318
===============
GalaxyFencingWorld星劍
1.
Avalon - 英國劍術基礎班 (4堂班)
可選上課星期及時間
星期日 15:00 - 16:30
星期日 17:00 - 18:30
熱血Marketplace價: $1280
限時優惠價: $1000
2
Avalon - 16世紀意大利劍術體驗班 (4堂班)
每堂限數4 人
可選上課星期及時間:
星期五 19:00 - 20:30
熱血Marketplace價: $1280
限時優惠價: $1000
3
光劍技術Youngling訓練班 (成人班 - 4堂)
每堂限數4 人
可選上課星期及時間:
星期一 19:00 - 20:30
星期三 21:00 - 22:30
星期日 11:00 – 12:30
熱血Marketplace價: $1280
限時優惠價: $1000
4
光劍技術Youngling訓練班 (兒童班 - 4堂)
每堂限數4 人
可選上課星期及時間:
星期五 15:00 - 16:30
星期五 17:00 – 18:30
星期六 15:00 - 16:30
熱血Marketplace價: $980
限時優惠價: $800
5.
中世紀意大利槍術基礎班 (4堂班)
時間:星期六 1700 - 1830
熱血Marketplace價: $1280
限時優惠價: $1000
===============
Shermanic English Team
1.
Shermanic English Team - 單對單英文指導 (4堂)
對象:HKDSE 英文科、海外英文考試、大學英文科寫作習作輔導、在職人士進修英語、純粹為興趣學英語
上課形式﹕實體上課 / 視像會議
上課地點﹕太子
上課時間﹕由學生自行與導師商議
課堂長度:每堂一小時三十分鐘
單對單專享Prime服務﹕
HKDSE英文科學生每份校本評核習作(SBA)及SLP均可享一次免費修改服務 (只適用於在本中心的在學單對單私補學生)。
在職人士如需應付面試或撰寫員工表現評核書,每四堂學費可提供一次免費修改服務 (只適用於在學學生,並最多最可累積兩次)。
以上Prime服務不可轉讓。
熱血Marketplace價︰$1520
限時優惠價︰$1440
2.
Shermanic English Team - 英文教學小組班 (4堂)
對象﹕HKDSE英文科
上課形式﹕實體上課 ; 如未能上課,則安排以視像會議形式上課作補堂。
上課地點﹕太子
上課時間﹕按指定時間上課。現時逢星期五17:30-19:00或逢星期日13:00-14:30
課堂長度:每堂一小時三十分鐘
熱血Marketplace價︰$720
限時優惠價︰$690
3.
Shermanic English Team 單對單英文指導 (1堂)
對象:對象:HKDSE 英文科、海外英文考試、大學英文科寫作習作輔導、在職人士進修英語、純粹為興趣學英語
上課形式﹕實體上課 / 視像會議
上課地點﹕太子
上課時間﹕由學生自行與導師商議
課堂長度:每堂一小時三十分鐘
單對單專享Prime服務﹕
HKDSE英文科學生每份校本評核習作(SBA)及SLP均可享一次免費修改服務 (只適用於在本中心的在學單對單私補學生)。
在職人士如需應付面試或撰寫員工表現評核書,每四堂學費可提供一次免費修改服務 (只適用於在學學生,並最多最可累積兩次)。
以上Prime服務不可轉讓。
熱血Marketplace價︰$400
限時優惠價:$380
教學理念﹕
個人化診斷弱項。
舊生再度檢視學習成效,取長補短。
試卷分類訓練,全部題種特訓,令你知道自己強項弱項,充實個人化學習。
定期reading & writing test大大提升應試能力。
不迷信罐頭句,著重訓練學生靈活變通,以達到反脆弱目標。
著重語境學習及組織,向盲目背誦說不。
真材實學,絕不教取巧soundbite。
===============
Triquest
1.
Triquest - 巴西柔術
時間:Mon (8:30pm) , *Wed (7:00pm) ,Wed (8:30pm) , **Fri (7:30pm)
堂數:10堂
上課地點:上環
所有課程均以小組形式進行。 為了給學生提供最佳的學習環境,每堂課的人數為8-10人。
*Wed (7:00pm) 為基礎課程
**Fri (7:30pm) 為No Gi課程
熱血Marketplace價:$3500
限時優惠價:$3288
2.
Triquest - 菲律賓魔杖
時間:星期一/星期二晚上七時正
堂數:10堂
上課地點:上環
所有課程均以小組形式進行。 為了給學生提供最佳的學習環境,每堂課的人數為8-10人。
熱血Marketplace價:$3500
限時優惠價:$3288
3.
Triquest - 巴西柔術兒童班
時間:逢星期六 10:30am - 12:00noon
堂數:4堂
上課地點:上環
適合6-10歲兒童參與
所有課程均以小組形式進行。 為了給學生提供最安全的學習環境,每堂課的人數為4人。
如超過四人,會有多一位教練參與
熱血Marketplace價:$1000
限時優惠價:$928
===============
長笛教練
1
1對1長笛課程 - 初級班 (1小時/1堂) - 4堂
熱血Marketplace價: $1580
限時優惠價: $1350
2
1對1長笛課程 - 中級班 (1小時/1堂) - 4堂
熱血Marketplace價: $2200
限時優惠價: $1980
「長笛教練」服務條款︰
1. 1對1長笛課程只提供上門授課。
2. 6人小組長笛課程上課地點將由導師另行通知。
3. 所有課堂不設退款或補堂,敬請留意。
4. 導師會再行與成功報名的學員聯絡。
5. 課堂時間將由導師與學員自行商議。
6. 樂器需要學員自備,亦可由導師代為選購或請求導師提供意見,詳情可向導師查詢。
==========
Anson教室
1
Anson 教室 - 結他個人指導班 (1期8堂 - 每堂1小時)
熱血Marketplace 價︰$2400
限時優惠價︰$2200
內容:課程內由動作、節奏、音樂理論、和聲、結他用聲、歌曲彈奏等不同面向了解結他,
用由淺入深訓練,務求為學員提供一個最合適的學習過程。也會因應學生需求,提供
Fingerstyle,考試(Rock School)、合奏、獨奏等不同情況下訓練與應對方法。
電木同價
地點:新蒲崗
備註:自備結他,Pick (器材購買可以向導師查詢)
*所有課堂不設退款或補堂,敬請留意。
**導師會再行與成功報名的學員聯絡。
***課堂時間將由導師與學員自行商議。
==========
A級音樂
1
歌唱技巧訓練班 (8堂 - 每堂45分鐘)
(原價: $3600)
熱血Marketplace價︰$3200
限時優惠價︰$2688
歌唱技巧訓練班 簡介:
課程會從用聲基礎、歌唱技巧、現場演繹三大範疇,令學生達致全方位演唱技巧的提升。
導師會針對學生的長短處,度身訂造訓練方法,提升學生聲線的力量及彈性。
課堂使用現代科學拆解發聲原理,無需擔心訓練內容抽象難明,一個簡單動作令你明白如何使用你的聲音,以最健康的方法獲得最強大的聲線!
*所有課堂不設退款或補堂,敬請留意。
**導師會再行與成功報名的學員聯絡。
***課堂時間將由導師與學員自行商議。
2
歌唱諮詢服務
年齡: 不限
時間: 45 mins
熱血Marketplace價: 每首歌 $800
限時優惠價︰$700
甚麼是「歌唱諮詢」?
歌唱諮詢是針對不同人士需要而設計的單次諮詢服務。服務會針對你目前的疑難,按照你的歌唱能力提供意見及指導,個人及團體皆可使用。
如果你需要在Annual Dinner表演、準備歌唱比賽、求婚或婚禮演唱、又或在朋友聚會準備飲歌,臨時需要一些歌唱導師的專業意見,
歌唱諮詢服務正是為你而設。
※如為團體訂購或有特殊需要,導師可於工作室以外之指定地點進行指導 (除離島及禁區)。
※使用限期:90日內
**所有課堂不設退款或補堂,敬請留意。
**導師會再行與成功報名的學員聯絡。
**課堂時間將由導師與學員自行商議。
==========
大力教室
1
1對1流行鼓課程 (1期10堂 - 每堂1小時)
熱血Marketplace價:$3500
限時優惠價︰$2988
2
1對1流行鼓課程(1小時)
熱血Marketplace價:$380
限時優惠價︰$350
3
1對2流行鼓課程 (1期4堂 - 每堂1小時)
熱血Marketplace價:$980
限時優惠價︰$800
流行鼓課程:
認識鼓手的角色
握棍技巧(Gripping)
閱譜技巧 (Reading)
訓練基本功(Rudiments)
聽力訓練(Listening)
認識不同鼓手 和 樂隊
練習技巧 和 考試技巧
歌曲學習(Cover) 和 獨奏(Solo)
*所有課堂不設退款或補堂,敬請留意。
**成功報名後會於3日內收到電郵通知。
***導師會再行與成功報名的學員聯絡。
****課堂時間將由導師與學員自行商議。
==================
湘傑音樂室
1
讀譜及音樂入門小組班
課程:
3-4人一班
一期五堂,每堂一小時
熱血Marketplace價:$960/位
限時優惠價:$880/位
2
夢想成真個別鋼琴課程 (四堂)
熱血Marketplace價:$1400/位 起
限時優惠價:$1280/位 起
※價錢視乎教授地點而定。
*所有課堂不設退款或補堂,敬請留意。
**導師會再行與成功報名的學員聯絡。
***課堂時間將由導師與學員自行商議。
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「writing 20 1-1 2021」的推薦目錄:
writing 20 1-1 2021 在 譚蕙芸 Facebook 的最讚貼文
[沒有誰比誰高貴](六之五)
反修例運動此前多場審訊,不論是襲警、藏武器、暴動案,在法庭裡的檢視方法,採取視覺較微觀。示威者在這條街被捕,隔一條街發生的事,不會視為相關。時間上檢視也收得狹窄,例如7.21元朗襲擊,或831太子站事件,示威者受事件影響之後上街,法庭不會視為有參考價值(relevant).
然而國安法第一審,唐英傑開電單車涉衝向警察防線,車上插了「光復香港。時代革命」旗幟,案件搬到法庭,被提升到「恐怖活動」「煽動他人分裂國家」層次。
法庭對刑事案件審訊,多檢視可觸摸之物,如翻看閉路電視、檢視直播片段、化驗被告背包或手袋的物件。
但驗視一句話的意義,用甚麼方法,拉闊到歷史何年何月,翻查幾多本字典,還是要揭開人腦看看人的思想?
早幾天,辯方專家證人,港大學者李詠怡當被控方逼問舉殖民旗的人心裡想甚麼,梁天琦設計口號的心底意思。Eliza一度在庭上表示:「我沒法子有讀心術 (I am not a mindreader).」
如何去讀一場社會運動的集體心理?社會學家,明顯和法律專家有不同看法。
這天,彭寶琴法官問及Francis,他如何理解「反修例運動的時間線(timeline)」。作為專研社運的學者,Francis認為運動由2019年6月9日開始,延續至大約2020年中,但難說某一日正式結束。彭官反問:「逃犯條例不是撤回了嗎?在2019年9月條例撤回後,李教授你仍然覺得運動繼續下去?」Francis說是。
彭官亦問Francis,「你在問卷中問示威者,那一個口號有代表性,但每一個集會不是有主辦單位嗎?大會不是有他們的主題?」(亦即民間所謂的大台)
Francis回應道,每次遊行雖有個別主題,但整場大型反修例運動不只是個別遊行。「例如人們最初對『齊上齊落』口號感到有共鳴,因為此口號表達了整場運動裡,示威者感到的團結精神和聯繫感(togetherness)。很多時候,口號不是直接與政策訴求有關,而是表達示威者的情感和感受。」
這天,辯方專家證人,中大新傳學院教授李立峯Francis進入第二天作供。高個子的他,頭髮長及頸,穿了淺灰色西裝外套,外套布料質地有反光效果,西裝上的縐紋特別顯眼。他出現在證人枱時,拿着橙色的布袋,把厚厚的文件塞在布袋內,擱在證人枱。
Francis喜歡把手踭擱在枱上,竪起前臂,長長的手指揮舞着,談起他熱愛的社科方法論,語速越說越快,微微地左右搖動帶輪辦公室椅子。法官不只一次請他說慢一點。
有些時候,三位法官們發問的問題,比雙方大狀們更多。
Francis說,曾向全香港市民抽樣撥打電話作民意調查。為了要有隨機性,撥打住戶家居電話時,會向聽電話的人問,若家居住戶多於一人,那一位同住者的生日日期較接近,則邀請該人來回答民調。
唯一的男法官陳嘉信,手指之間常夾着筆,雙眉上下舞動,立即發問:「為何打電話去家居要這樣問,而手機則不用問?」
Francis解答道:「在外國,曾有研究發現,在家庭中負責接電話的人,永遠都是家庭主婦。」法官杜麗冰聽到後,臉上綻放出會心微笑,更向陳官互相交換笑容。Francis續說:「又或者是年輕人搶着電話聽,這樣,民調做出來就會有偏差。」
另一個社會學方法論的提問,也是由陳嘉信法官追問出來的。Francis團隊亦曾於廿多場遊行或集會活動中做現場調查。調查員會被分派在集會或遊行現場,邀請參加者填問卷。
但隨着運動變得更流水式,出現更多變數,甚至出現衝突。為了保護調查員安全,例如7.27元朗遊行,他們會派出少量資深調查員到現場,派發含有QR Code的單張,示威者可以事後上網填寫。
無論是代表控方的周天行檢控專員,抑或法官都問Francis,讓人拿單張回去跟QR Code填問卷,怎樣肯定填的人真是去過現場?
陳嘉信法官問:「你說,填問卷的人很熱心,你怎知他們會不會『熱心』過頭,上網虛構答案?」他雙手在空中比劃着括號,把「熱心」二字強調。
Francis說,他們巧妙地在網上問卷中加入了一條題目:「這天在那一個示威地點加入隊伍」,亦有一個選項是:「我今天沒有參加遊行」。填表者並不知道,研究員會剔走沒參加遊行的人的意見。
「他們填的時候,不知道這條題目若答了,其實篩走了自己,最終我們便可以只分析參加過示威的人的數據。」三法官聽罷,明白學者一早想到這些漏洞,點頭表示明白。
法庭裡,尋找「光時」意義之旅,控辯雙方均花心力指斥對方研究方法有漏洞。
代表律政司的署理刑事檢控專員周天行,嘗試從Francis的研究裡,找尋不足之處。Francis和團隊以5種研究方法:全港性電話民意調查、示威現場問卷調查、焦點小組、連登討論區大數據分析、公共討論分析(時評人在傳媒的言論),多管齊下來理解社會運動中口號的意義。
周專員指,調查大部分於2020年初之前進行,而本案發生的日子(2020年7月1日)之前一段時間,即2020年2月至7月,Francis沒有相關研究。周專員問:「沒有任何事阻止你進行更多研究吧。」
Francis指,當他自己知道要做專家證人時,已是2021年4月底,時光追不回了。「我不能坐時光機回到過去(I cannot travel back in time to do it.) 周專員堅持追問,可以做電話民調呀。此時陳嘉信法官插嘴表達其看法:「即係你叫李教授在2021年問番啲人9個月前在想甚麼?」
Francis望着陳官說:「你說的我認同,即使可以問,搜集回來的數據也不會可信。問人今日在想甚麼會較可信,你問人一年前想甚麼,可信性甚低。」
周專員轉以「以子之矛」嘗試再去進攻。「你曾說過口號的意義會隨時間改變,你在案發前一段相關時間,無研究喎。」Francis再解釋,除非遇到重大事件,口號的意思隨時間改變,基本上是以年計,或以十年計,「口號意義改變,並非分分秒秒在變動」。
Francis在庭上首次披露,他團隊進行的「連登討論區」大數據研究,份量之浩瀚,他和團隊從連登「時事台」從2019年6月到8月21日的討論帖子及回應留言,涉及2千5百萬個,電腦檔案足有38GB。
周專員從枱底拿出幾疊白紙,原來他的團隊從連登討論區,人手萃取了一些帖文,叫Francis即場示範如何做Coding (編碼)工作。
西裝骨骨的Francis翻閱着文件,開始說:「呢位網民【四葉妹妹】有提及過「光復香港。時代革命」沒提及「港獨」及「五大訴求」,可算為「1, 1, 0, 0」; 網民【英國男孩】完全沒提,電腦會記為「0, 0, 0, 0」;這位【草尼馬仔】貼了光時旗的照片,不含文字留言,我們技術上沒法認出。但不改變們這個整個研究方法的合理性」。在嚴肅法庭,聽到鬼馬的網名,旁聽者都忍不住笑了出來。
控辯雙方過招,誰的「方法和總結」算是合理,光時究竟意義何在,是否違犯國案法?
Francis今天較完整披露他的看法。他認為,控方專家劉智鵬教授,以歷史及語言學角度去看「光時」這口號的意思,作出一個聲稱,就是「『光復香港。時代革命』這口號,只有唯一一個解讀,並為所有人共知」,「但我認為劉教授沒有提供充足證據去證明這個聲稱」。
Francis解釋,劉教授報告中用了「necessarily」一字,即口號詮釋的唯一可能「必然」是這樣,這是Francis自己認為需要用多種社科方法驗證的假設。
口號究竟是由喊的人那端衍生意思,還是從接收者那邊決定意思?
陳法官指,他理解控方劉專家報告中指的是,「喊口號的人懷有分裂國家意圖和目的」。但Francis卻說,喊口號基本上是一個「傳播行為」,不只是一個人單方面「個人表達」那麼簡單。
一個口號喊出來,是由嗌的人承擔意義發送者責任,還是接收的人也有份貢獻意義?如此哲學性問題,在法庭的空氣裡交鋒。
Francis又像在講課一樣,「作為傳播學者,我認為,喊口號是一個溝通行為,不只是一種自我表達。我嗌一個口號,會考慮接收者如何理解。」
小個子的法官杜麗冰,左手手指戴了綠寶石戒指,她一邊說話一邊以手部語言輔助她的比喻:「好像我跟一百個人說,我喜歡西瓜,有人會覺得我愛吃紅色的生果,另一個人覺得我愛吃綠色皮的水果。我發送一個訊息,但別人接收不同。」
Francis補充:「不止這樣,說話的人會小心用字。例如有一句句子意義明確,另一句句子的意義含糊,如果我要表達自己,減少誤會,我會選較明確的那句。」陳官提出,智力不同的人也會用字不同。
Francis反駁:「不只,也看大家出身甚麼背景,像你們法庭背景的人理解『引導性問題』(leading question)和我們社科人便不同,不只是智力差異的問題。」聽到這句話,杜官和陳官都作深思狀。
控方曾挑戰,指若文字意義多樣,人們便沒辦法溝通。Francis在此反駁:「劉教授說,人們會跟社會慣例(convention)去用字,但問題是,社會有很多慣例。文字使用很複雜,也有修辭學(rhetoric)作為一種慣例。劉教授把語言意義解得太過死板(too rigid),語言意義多樣,修辭令人們變通調適,否則世界便沒有創意寫作了(creative writing)。」
控方周專員指出,劉教授也有其「證據」,就是警方跟據示威錄影片段,數算有多少次出現「光時口號」,而這口號與「顛覆元素」如港獨訴求、暴力行為同時出現。Francis反駁,這數據只在「點算上」可靠,但兩件事同時出現(co-appearance),並不等於有關。
Francis用一個生活化的例子,說明兩種同時出現的東西,無必然關係。「在大學,學生在班房可以自由入座,兩個大學生每次課堂都一起坐,可以解讀為他們是朋友;但在中學,課室座位是被編排的,兩個中學生常並排而坐,只能說他們是一起坐。」
然後,Francis就望着控辯雙方大狀的方向:「就像在這個法庭,李先生和周先生也一起坐,要考慮這是個法庭場景。」眾笑。
至於示威場景,有其特性,Francis解釋:「好像每年香港七一遊行,於同一個示威裡出現的團體,訴求可以不共容。如性小眾、勞工及外傭團體也會各自有訴求。」
即使大型示威有一些共同訴求,各人理解也有差異。Francis指,他有研究2014雨傘運動,其口號為「我要真普選」,「但落實到具體解釋,甚麼是『真』的普選?『真』字既開放又抽象,讓人各自己想象。」
文字容易於不同場景被誤解,Francis特別澄清了一個可能的誤會。焦點小組討論的指引中,研究員需要留意討論覆蓋不同範疇。其中一個範圍呈在法庭文件中,寫道:「社會運動意識形態和激進化(social movement ideology and movement radicalization」。
Francis特別澄清「激進」二字的在的學術意思:「激進化,在研究社運學術世界裡,意思是與社會常態的距離(deviation from social norm ),涉及更重大改變的意思,並沒有『好與壞』的評價。」
「好像反修例運動最初,有人要求『成立獨立調查委員會』,這訴求較溫和,因為過去香港也曾成立過,相比起來,『解散警隊』這口號則較激進」。陳官補充:「即是要求更徹底的社會改變。」
陳官亦引述文件中的資料,好奇地向Francis查問:「為何你認為『光復香港。時代革命』比『五大訴求』更激進呢?」Francis解釋:「修辭學上,『革命』比『訴求』所涉及的改變,幅度更大,這是明顯的。」
在香港的刑事審訊上,「不爭辯事實、客觀存在」是常用術語,去指控一個人做了一件事,作為刑事案的入罪條件。然而一支旗,一句口號,如何建基於事實,使用這種法律語言,又出現了奇特的交雜和火花:
周專員指出,警察報告中點算示威口號出現次數是「客觀、不爭辯的事實」。
Francis反駁道:「你們只是提供了口號在示威現場,曾出現過的這個事實。」
周進逼:「你們只是倚賴別人的意見。」
Francis:「我們紀錄了人們表達意見的這個事實。我們分析的文章、人們論述過這些意見,都是一種『社會現實』(social facts)」
周再問:「你是否同意,劉智鵬教授報告裡,他對光時口號的解釋,是對的(correct)?」
詮譯變成了對和錯,二元對立,二選一,社科學者抗議了。
Francis:「我們的總結是,口號是開放的,抽象的,不只一個解釋,每人有每人的論述。我不會評價一個時評家對口號的解釋,正如我不會評價焦點小組裡一個平凡人的解讀。(I wouldn’t judge)我不會說,這個人的解讀是正確,這只是他自己的說話 (I wouldn’t say if this guy is correct, it is his own articulation)。」
周不放棄:「你不會異議,若我說劉智鵬教授的解讀是對的。」
Francis斬釘截鐵回應:「我會異議,問題並不在對與錯」。
杜麗冰法官嘗試插話,問Francis:「你會否覺得劉教授可以作這樣的解釋,即使你不贊同其解讀?」
Francis說:「我個人不會對口號作這樣的詮釋。劉智鵬教授的詮譯,只是『其中一個詮釋』。其解讀的地位沒有特別高,也沒有特別低。相比起某一個時事評論員,或者我們焦點小組的某一個參與者。」
周天行在盤問到最後,拋出了這個問題:「我說,我方對口號的理解方法(approach)更可靠。」
Francis噗哧笑了,全場亦爆出陣陣笑聲:「哈哈,肯定不是。警察在『點算口號』上或許是可靠,但我挑戰警察報告中『對數據的理解』,當口號與顛覆元素共同於示威場合出現,根本不是支持口號有顛覆意義的證據。我對警察報告是完全不贊同。」
此時,周天行專員彎腰,跟坐在他旁的同事耳語了逾三十秒。
周專員回過頭,橫空拋出這句話:「我向你指出,你的報告不可靠,不相關。」
Francis咬字清晰,語氣肯定回應:「我的報告,既可靠,合乎標準,亦相關。」
誰的解讀更有權威?控方專家認為喊口號的人必然意圖顛覆;辯方則指出,口號是開放和曖昩的,任何人的解讀,都沒有比另一個人的解讀更有權威。
一支旗,八個字,意義之爭,連繫着多位國安法被告的命運。
國安第一被告唐英傑,身型壯碩,年輕的他坐在犯人欄,由幾個懲教署職員押送。
唐的學歷不算高,是一位日本餐廳的厨師,然而穿着深色西服的他,還押了一年後,出席他自己的審訊,連日聽學者解讀他舉過的一支旗,都堅持翻閱着厚厚的法律文件,專心地聽着耳機,坐在他旁邊隔了犯人欄的翻譯先生,即時以廣東話傳譯。
「Rhetoric….修辭學」英語對話,小聲的廣東話,在法庭後方響起了,兩條聲道有些重疊。
幾名穿墨綠色制服的懲教署職員, 和唐一起坐在寬闊的犯人欄內。懲教職員的身體,慢慢挪移越近唐的方向,他們偶爾也竪起耳朵,跟進學者們的辯論進程。連穿着保安制服的叔叔,都聽得懂英語,都留意到辯論擦出火花,露出驚訝的表情。
八個字,有罪還是無罪,全城關注。誰的解讀更高貴?
時鐘已到下午四時半,明天Francis繼續作供。
***
國安法首審專家證人系列(六之一):[Regime & Redeem]
7月2日控方專家劉智鵬作供
https://www.facebook.com/wwviviantam/photos/a.1435553239866430/4210137115741348/
國安法首審專家證人系列(六之二):[Just Do it]
7月9日辯方專家李詠怡作供
https://www.facebook.com/wwviviantam/photos/a.1435553239866430/4229321820489544/
國安法首審專家證人系列(六之三):[過去與未來]
7月12日辯方專家李詠怡作供
https://www.facebook.com/wwviviantam/photos/a.1435553239866430/4237523026336090/
國安法首審專家證人系列(六之四):[知行合一]
7月13日辯方專家李詠怡及李立峯作供
https://www.facebook.com/wwviviantam/photos/a.1435553239866430/4240215429400183/
國安法首審專家證人系列(六之五):[沒有誰比誰高貴]
7月14日辯方專家李立峯作供
https://www.facebook.com/wwviviantam/photos/a.1435553239866430/4243328702422189/
國安法首審專家證人系列(六之六):[選櫻桃的人]
7月15日辯方專家李立峯作供
https://www.facebook.com/wwviviantam/photos/a.1435553239866430/4245860505502342/
(圖為辯方專家證人中大新傳學院教授李立峯離開高等法院)
writing 20 1-1 2021 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最讚貼文
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”