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32部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過92萬的網紅ochikeron,也在其Youtube影片中提到,Crispy outside soft inside. Addictive bite-size pieces 😋 Great recipe to use up potatoes! Tater tots are grated potatoes formed into small cylinders ...
「easy food company」的推薦目錄:
- 關於easy food company 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於easy food company 在 啤酒頭釀造 Taiwan Head Brewers Brewing Company Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於easy food company 在 謙預 Qianyu.sg Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於easy food company 在 ochikeron Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於easy food company 在 糖餃子Sweet Dumpling Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於easy food company 在 糖餃子Sweet Dumpling Youtube 的最佳貼文
easy food company 在 啤酒頭釀造 Taiwan Head Brewers Brewing Company Facebook 的最佳貼文
🍻啤酒頭配拎指南 Part 12 – 穀雨烏龍茶啤酒🍻
「穀雨始,萬物生」春意盎然的日子裡,來場豪邁的美食饗宴。
喝一口穀雨,獨特甘醇烏龍茶香擴延味蕾,讓舌尖先暖暖身,再來一口 AVENUE 經典漢堡,大口咬進層層美味,一起來享用春天裡最豪邁的配拎。
🍴【AVENUE 特製漢堡】🍴
6盎司漢堡排 自製芝麻麵包 切達起司 墨西哥辣椒 生菜葉 紫洋蔥 番茄 搭配酥炸薯條,優選食材層層推疊出美味的AVENUE特製漢堡。
6 oz. Beef Patty On House Made Sesame Bun, with Spicy Chipotle Chili, Lettuce, Tomato Red Onion, Vermont Cheddar, Served with Fries.
🍺穀雨 - 穀雨烏龍茶啤酒
ABV 6%
IBU 21
📍 AVENUE
AVENUE 座落於敦南安和商圈,是一個無拘無束、悠閒自在的空間,提倡“快速慢食FAST CASUAL”新形態的飲食概念, 追求工作與生活的平衡,即使在繁忙生活中的每一天也不能虧待自己。 AVENUE 堅持選用新鮮食材,現場精心烹調,重現最讓你舒心的經典美味,不論內用或外帶,只想給您一再回味的美食。
在這可以自由挑選喜歡的座位,室內或是戶外,來杯冰啤酒或是現調雞尾酒,不管是獨自享用,還是三五好友輕鬆聊天。若是時間有限,外帶一杯熱咖啡或是手工現做披薩,雖然忙碌但還是不想妥協。 AVENUE就是您的秘密基地。
AVENUE is a fast casual eatery serving up quick, quality food and drinks to satisfy your urban, up-tempo lifestyle. AVENUE’s chill, easy-going space is the perfect spot to enjoy crave-worthy meals prepared with quality ingredients. Our menu satisfies your itch for classic comfort foods, featuring throw –back dishes like corn dogs & sloppy joes &ice cream sundaes. From hearty pastas, simple sandwiches & burgers to vibrant salads, our food delivers simple comforts to fuel your busy life.
Our relaxed, order-at-the-counter service style lets you set your own pace. Take out a quality cup of coffee or pizza. Grab a beer from the fridge or order a cocktail, pick a seat, and hang out with good company. Pop in for a laid back lunch, dinner or late night bite. Enjoy the sunshine in our outdoor seating area. Come alone or bring a group - everyone is welcome!
#啤酒頭配拎指南 #餐酒搭配 #跟著節氣喝啤酒
#啤酒頭 #啤酒頭釀造 #taiwanheadbrewers
〈 請理性飲酒,喝酒不開車 〉
easy food company 在 謙預 Qianyu.sg Facebook 的精選貼文
【送給老闆們的禮物 - 防止公司破財的八大法!】
我的客人當中有好些是中小企業的老闆。雖然大多都有老闆相,但往往在他們的臉上,不分年齡層,我都看到四個字:「歷經滄桑」。
生意本來就難做,去年的疫情更讓一些行業吃盡苦頭,我做這支影片希望盡一點綿力,幫助各位老闆們。企業做得好,上至老闆,下至員工,家裡都能有飯吃,有工作做,人人的心裡都會比較踏實。
這影片本該在新春頭幾天出來的,但我忙到焦頭爛額,分身乏術,然後......就把希望寄託在元宵上片,但還有幾輪的修改。剛剛剪輯師在凌晨兩點把片發給我,然後......只能在正月十六早上三點多上片啦!對,我就是半夜不懂幾點場的Youtuber呀~
裡面的一部份的訊息雖是和春節有關,但大多都是經得起時間的考驗的,絕對一年到尾都受用!
如果這影片觀看率差,明年過年前,我再發一波冲收视!😁 元宵過了一天快樂!
我的Youtube頻道:https://youtu.be/3ARPemI6GuY
_______________________________
Among my clients, there are many small to medium enterprise business owners. Although most of them have the facial signs of being a boss, more often than not, on their faces, regardless of their age group, I can see that they have been through the vicissitudes of life.
It is never easy to do business and the pandemic last year had crippled many industries. I produced this video, to do my bit to help all bosses out there.
When a company is doing well, from the boss at the top to the employee at the lowest level, everybody gets to bring money home and put food on the table. When there is still work to do, there will be a comforting sense of security in every one.
This video should have been up in the first few days of Chinese New Year, but I was so busy that days just flew by. So I put hope that perhaps this could be uploaded on Yuan Xiao. However there were still a few rounds of amendments. My video editor just sent me the video at 2am earlier, so here it is! On the 16th day of the first Lunar month at 3am+, my first video for 2021! Yes, I am that Youtuber who uploads at ungodly hours~
There is a portion of information in the video related to CNY, but most information inside can definitely bear the test of the time, and most certainly useful for the bosses all year round!
If this video has poor views, I will put this up again next year before Chinese New Year to push up the viewership! 😁
On my Youtube: https://youtu.be/3ARPemI6GuY
⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯
easy food company 在 ochikeron Youtube 的精選貼文
Crispy outside soft inside. Addictive bite-size pieces 😋
Great recipe to use up potatoes!
Tater tots are grated potatoes formed into small cylinders and deep-fried, trademarked by American frozen food company Ore-Ida.
Deep-fried leftover scraps and small potatoes without breading or batter are good, too!
My son and I've been to potato digging and got some potatoes again this year 👍
2018 https://youtu.be/ri4P8KMQJBI
2019 https://youtu.be/tqHZmHY4i5I
2020 https://youtu.be/y6R5f_p3iBs
---------------------------------
EASY Tater Tots Recipe
Difficulty: Very Easy
Time: 20min
Number of servings: 4
Ingredients:
600g (1.3oz.) potatoes
2/3 tsp. salt
pepper
1 tbsp. flour
deep frying oil
Directions:
1. Wash and peel potatoes. Place them in a microwavable dish, cover, and microwave on medium (600w) for 5 minutes, until slightly heated (not cooked through). Undercooked potatoes are easy to shred.
2. Using a shredder, shred the potatoes.
3. Season with salt and pepper, and mix in flour.
4. Wrap in plastic wrap to flatten the potatoes. Then cut it into small pieces, nicely shape them into cylinders about an inch long.
5. Deep fry in oil at 180C (350F) until crisp golden brown on the outside.
↓レシピ(日本語)
https://cooklabo.blogspot.com/2021/07/Tater-Tots.html
---------------------------------
Music by
YouTube Audio Library
Follow me on social media. If you have recreated any of my food, you can share some pictures #ochikeron. I am always happy to see them.
♥FOLLOW ME HERE♥
http://instagram.com/ochikeron/
https://www.facebook.com/ochikeron
https://plus.google.com/+ochikeron
http://twitter.com/ochikeron
♥My COOKBOOK available on Amazon Kindle♥
http://amzn.to/2EwR3ah
NO MORE hard copies... those who got one are lucky!
♥More Written Recipes are on my BLOG♥
http://createeathappy.blogspot.com/
♥My Recipe Posts in Japanese♥
http://cooklabo.blogspot.jp/
http://cookpad.com/ami
http://twitter.com/alohaforever
♥and of course PLEASE SUBSCRIBE♥
http://www.youtube.com/user/ochikeron?sub_confirmation=1
easy food company 在 糖餃子Sweet Dumpling Youtube 的最讚貼文
Hello friends! Today we're going to share with you how to make the super fluffy but light in the texture American style pancakes.
The pancake's shape and structure varies worldwide. But fluffy American pancakes are on my A-list. Everybody loves pancakes because they're so easy to make, but NOT THAT EASY. I mean if you want to make the most delicious one.
So we did some research to find the recipe. New York Magazine has voted Clinton St. Bakery Co’s pancakes are the best in New York city twice, so no doubt, we tried their recipe. And we love it. They are rich in flavor but light in texture. Super Yummy. Their pancakes are famous for a reason.
In this video, we’ll share the secret of these pancakes step by step, and how to make the fluffy texture (almost like a cake). They are great for a weekend brunch, and we strongly recommend topping with maple butter and blueberries compote. Of course you can also add some crisp fried bacon with it, they are a classic American breakfast dream team forever :). Wow~so enjoyable. Every day should start like this.
📍 Please follow me on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sweetdumplingofficial/
📍 Welcome to follow me on FB: https://www.facebook.com/sweet.dumpling.studio
----------
How to make blueberry pancakes
☞ Yield: 8~10 servings, using ¼ cup to scoop the batter
✎ Ingredients
📍 pancake
all purpose flour 160g
milk 220g
baking powder 6g
granulated sugar 70g
salt 2g
unsalted butter 58g, melted
egg 2, M~L size
vanilla extract 2g
📍 maple butter
maple syrup 160g (about 1/2 cup)
cold unsalted butter 110g, cubed (about 1/2 cup)
📍 blueberry compote
fresh or frozen blueberries 178g (1 cup)
granulated sugar 22g (2 tbsp)
lemon juice 5g (1tsp)
✎ Instructions
📍 pancake
1. Sift flour and baking powder together into a large mixing bowl. Then add sugar and salt and mix well.
2. Separate egg yolks from egg whites. Add vanilla extract, milk and melted butter into yolks bowl, and whisk until combined.
3. Beat the egg whites by electric mixer or by hand with a whisk until foamy, then add sugar in 3 batches and continue whisking until they reach medium soft peaks.
4. Pour the egg yolk and milk mixture into the dry mixture, just mix until the flour is dissolved, the batter will be slightly lumpy. Don't over mix it.
5. Next, gently mix half of the whipped whites into the batter, using the whisk to mix from the bottom, then add the rest of the whipped whites and keep folding it in, but no need to fully incorporate.
6. Heat the griddle until hot about 190°C. Drop half cup of pancake batter on the griddle to test the temperature and let set. Once bubbles form and pop, flip it. If the color is nice, the heat is enough. (A common mistake many people make is they don't heat the griddle enough, which is why we need to test the first one.) BTW, if you prefer the crispy on the edge, you can grease the hot surface with a little oil or butter.
7. Add 1/4 cup pancake batter, as the pancake cooks, you will see bubbles start to form on top, once the bubbles pop and become holes, it's time to flip. (3~3.5 mins per side)
8. Repeat the process with remaining batter, you can add some blueberries on top to create fruit flavor. Cooking several pancakes at a time. Transfer cooked pancake to a plate and garnish with confectioners’ sugar on top. Serve warm with maple butter and blueberry compote. Enjoy! To keep the pancakes warm while you make more, you can preheat the oven to 50°C and transfer cooked pancakes in to keep warm.
📍 maple butter
1. Heat maple syrup in a small saucepan over medium heat.
2. Add cold butter to warm syrup (never bring to a boil), whisking until sauce is smooth and all of the butter is incorporated. Maple Butter can also be kept refrigerated for up to two months. Reheat before using.
📍 blueberry compote
1. Simply combine blueberries, sugar and lemon juice in a small pot over medium-low heat, stirring continuously.
2. Once cooked, simmer for 4-5 minutes, keep stirring until a thick mixture has formed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter:
00:00 opening
00:35 Ingredients
01:20 Preparation
03:49 Meringue(medium soft peaks)
04:48 How to make pancakes batter
06:17 How to cook pancakes(Blueberries and original)
08:28 How to make Maple Butter
09:53 the best ever pancakes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#pancakes
#ClintonStBakingCo
#easyrecipes
easy food company 在 糖餃子Sweet Dumpling Youtube 的最佳貼文
嗨!大家好,我是 Cassandre, 今天的『食不相瞞』要跟大家分享一款超級膨鬆柔軟、邊緣煎到酥脆,好吃到會邊吃邊笑的紐約名店風「美式鬆餅」(藍莓鬆餅與原味鬆餅/blueberry pancakes)。
世上的鬆餅百百種,不過今天想要跟大家分享的是美式鬆餅。如果沒有花時間去研究,會想說煎個鬆餅有什麼難的?答案是不容易呀!尤其是要找到好吃的食譜,煎出恰如其份的焦色,然後溫熱噴香的滋味在嘴裡釋放,一口就定江山。
我們這次的食譜是複刻自紐約排隊名店克林頓街烘焙店 (Clinton St. Baking Co.) 最受歡迎的美式鬆餅配方,它們家的鬆餅曾多次被媒體評選為全紐約最好吃的鬆餅冠軍,仔細研究了它們的配方,發現還真的有一些小撇步跟人家不同,例如攪打蛋白霜為鬆餅帶來如空氣般的口感,而正是因為這種不小看鬆餅的態度,讓他們精進了做法,將鬆餅提升到膨鬆有彈性,外圈略為酥脆的完美口感。
不僅是鬆餅好吃,他們對於沾醬也不馬虎,不是淋淋楓糖漿就了事,特製的楓糖奶油醬(Maple Butter)跟藍莓淋醬(blueberry compote),讓鬆餅的美味更提昇,到底有多愛鬆餅才能發想出這樣的完美組合呢?(笑)
這支影片除了分享如何做出紐約最美味的鬆餅 ,也會示範如何調製麵糊跟煎鬆餅的小技巧。小小一片鬆餅學問還真不少,再次應證「愈簡單的東西愈難」的道理,有很多小細節無法拍進影片裡,但之後會透過文字細細分享,喜歡美式鬆餅的朋友一定不要錯過哦。
📍 我們的IG: https://www.instagram.com/sweetdumplingofficial/
📍 我們的FB: https://www.facebook.com/sweet.dumpling.studio
這支影片還會有無人聲的 #ASMR 版本:敬請期待
-----------------------------------
美式鬆餅佐楓糖奶油醬 怎麼作呢?
下面是這道美式藍莓鬆餅佐楓糖奶油醬的做法與食譜:
☞ 份量:8~10片鬆餅 (使用1/4杯量杯挖勺)
✎ 材料 / Ingredients
📍 鬆餅
中筋麵粉 160g
牛奶 220g, 室溫
泡打粉 6g
細砂糖 70g
鹽 2g
無鹽奶油(butter) 58g, 切成小塊
雞蛋 2顆,室溫
香草精 2g
📍 楓糖奶油醬
楓糖漿 160g (約1/2杯)
無鹽奶油110g, 冰的切成小塊 (約1/2杯)
📍 藍莓醬
新鮮或冷凍的藍莓 178g, 1杯
細砂糖 22g, 2大匙
檸檬汁 5g, 1茶匙
✎ 做法 / Instructions
📍 鬆餅
1. 準備一個大型料理盆,將麵粉與泡打粉一起篩入,再加入總份量一半的糖和鹽,以打蛋器混合均勻
2. 另準備兩個中型料理盆,將兩顆蛋的蛋黃和蛋白分開。在裝蛋黃的那一盆裡加入香草精跟牛奶與融化的奶油(melted butter),攪拌均勻,備用
3. 將蛋白以中速打發一分鐘,接著把剩餘的糖分三次加入,打發至中等的軟性發泡即可,不要打過頭
4. 把蛋黃牛奶液倒入麵粉盆中,用打蛋器沿著盆邊翻攪,然後把打蛋器豎直,用搗拌的方式混合(手法請參考影片),拌到乾粉跟濕料都混在一起,看不見乾粉即可,這時會有一些結塊沒關係,不用攪到很光滑的質地,我們需要這種結塊,它是鬆餅膨鬆的美味關鍵
5. 接著,加入一半的蛋白霜,力道緩慢輕柔的將他們混拌, 一樣是不要過度攪拌,加入剩餘的蛋白霜拌勻,表面有些許的蛋白霜殘留也無所謂哦
6. 📌 電烤盤煎:將烤盤預熱至190°C(或195°C). 先舀小半勺麵糊來測試,我們預設第一面煎3分半,時間到翻面再煎3分,若上色漂亮,表示溫度跟煎的時間都OK.
📌 不沾鍋或鑄鐵鍋:若是用完全平底的不沾平底鍋或鑄鐵鍋(抹薄油)來煎,可先以中火加熱,待鍋子燒熱後再轉成中小火,一樣是先舀半勺麵糊來測試溫度和煎烤時間,不過要留意鍋子會蓄熱,會愈煎愈熱,所以要隨時觀察看上色情況,來調整火力跟時間。
7. 正式來煎,使用 1/4 cup 來舀麵糊,當表面出現氣泡時,先不要急著翻面,要等氣泡破掉形成孔洞再來翻面,我們是第一面煎3分半,另一面煎3分鐘,或直到兩面都呈金黃色即可
8. 重覆上面的動作把麵糊都用完,也可以舀好麵糊後在表面放上藍莓來製作水果風味的鬆餅,但藍莓煎的時候果汁會流出,所以每煎完一片都要擦拭鍋面
9. 將煎好的鬆餅放在盤子上,先撒上一點糖粉,再舀幾勺藍莓果醬,最後淋上楓糖奶油醬,就可以享用了,如果一次煎的量較多,可以把煎好的鬆餅放在以50c預熱的烤箱裡保溫
📍 楓糖奶油醬
1. 將楓糖倒入一個有深度的小鍋,以中小火加熱
2. 待楓糖溫度上升微熱尚未小滾前,加入奶油,攪拌到全數融化即可,留意不要煮到沸騰
📍 藍莓醬
1. 把藍莓、砂糖跟檸檬汁倒入小鍋中,以中火加熱
2. 煮滾後改中小火,持續以小滾狀態煮4~6分鐘,或煮到質地變稠但仍有流動性即可關火
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
影片章節 :
00:00 開場
00:35 食材介紹
01:20 前置準備(處理乾粉與分蛋)
03:14 製作蛋奶糊
03:49 打發蛋白霜(中度軟性發泡)
04:48 製作美式鬆餅麵糊
06:17 煎出漂亮的原味美式鬆餅和藍莓鬆餅
08:28 製作楓糖奶油醬(Maple Butter)
09:53 品嚐紐約最好吃的美式藍莓鬆餅
11:22 製作美式鬆餅技巧分享與注意事項
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
更詳盡的作法與 Tips,可以參考我們的食譜網站喔:
更多的食譜:
https://tahini.funique.info
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#紐約排隊名店美式鬆餅
#好家在我在家
#簡易甜點
本片是以 Panasonic Lumix GX85/GX80 4K 影片拍攝。
鏡頭:
Panasonic LEICA DG SUMMILUX 15mm F1.7,
Panasonic LUMIX G 25mm F1.7 ASPH.
More Info:
https://www.sweet-dumpling.com
FB Page:
https://www.facebook.com/sweet.dumpling.studio/