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

「關於藝術家生存之道」台南場：高雄場。

報名連結:https://garytu.tw/course/detail/207

哈囉！我是Garytu老師，疫情後許多藝術家和中小企業都面臨轉型。

在這個粉絲專頁我都保持藝術家的單一身分居多，但私下跟我熟識得都知道，我有另一個身分就是中小企業主，經過多年的角色切換，和多次的失敗，以及許多貴人的指點，這幾年得到了許多心得分享，沈思好幾年，決定開著門課程，我花了將近8年合作超過100個品牌，公司從個人轉工作室轉公司化經營，轉投資，但我鮮少在粉絲團透露這部份的訊息。

這講座分為三大類型關於生存、關於行銷、關於擴張。基本上標題下的問題我都經歷過，目前詳細的課綱已經完成，我點出許多關鍵痛點，是以藝術家/企業為出發點思考的課程。

這個講座給：

藝術工作者、想轉型的中小企業品牌第二代、藝術家、中小工作室，傳產第二代第三代、斜槓青年。

Achievement

2013-首位和台灣伯爵合作現場肖像的時尚插畫家
2013-首位和香港Milk X 登上雜誌合作的時尚插畫家
2014-首位和台灣新光三越Pop Fashion Store合作的時尚插畫家
2014-首位耗資百萬台幣製作國際標準化印刷畫冊的台灣時尚插畫家
2014-唯一台灣汎德BMW合作的台灣時尚插畫家
2015-擁有最多台灣奢侈品合作的時尚插畫家
2015-首位和頂尖亞洲奢侈品百貨香港置地廣場合作的台灣時尚插畫家
2016-作品由8½ Otto e Mezzo BOMBANA永久收藏於米其林三星餐廳
2016-作品由置地文華東方-AMBER永久收藏 米其林二星餐廳
2017-作品展出法國奧奈入選前十名於上海文化產權交易所進行拍賣
2017-作品展出法國商業藝術展，獲頒歐洲當代藝術獎-由醫學博士Jean-Charles Hachet所頒布的 ,跨足藝術與文學屆,得過法國美院競賽獎以及文學獎和國家古董沙龍所頒的勳章 。
2018-亞洲唯一入選P/CAS-PARIS CONTEMPORARY ART SHOW BY YIA ART FAIR 巴黎當代新興藝術博覽會的時尚插畫家
2019-亞洲唯一入選P/CAS-PARIS CONTEMPORARY ART SHOW BY YIA ART FAIR 巴黎當代新興藝術博覽會的時尚插畫家
2020-亞洲唯一入選 Italy 「muse design awards」銀獎以及「Italy A design-adesignaward 」入圍 .
​

Experience
實踐大學推廣部 約聘講師
實踐大學服裝設計系 講師
學學文創志業 約聘講師
文化大學推廣部 約聘講師
王建設計學院 約聘講師
北區技專校院教學資源中心 約聘講師
國防醫學大學 約聘講師

Clients
VOGUE、ELLE、BAZAAR、新潮雜誌、SHIN KONG MITSUKOSHI新光三越、香港置地廣場LANDMARK、微風廣場、BMW、Montblanc、Brunello Cucinelli 、MILK X、Elizabeth Arden、Piaget、LOEWE、TOD'S、Kate has a loft、Fairyq Artisan jewelry、Red valentino、Vacheron Constantin、Franck Muller、Tiffany&co、Club Monaco、Error Design Taiwan、Zine Magazine、What's Next環球風格生活誌、dpi 設計流行創意雜誌、商業週刊、MUZIK古典樂刊、We People 東西名人、Darphin、Jaeger-LeCoultre、Christian Louboutin 、Hennessy、Chole chen、Clé de Peau Beauté 、SAMSUNG 、誠品eslite 、Akachen、 Mountain Living 原柚本居、John Lobb 、NIKE 、DIOR、Hongkongland 、Juliart、Marie Claire 美麗佳人 、Häagen-Dazs 、 BVLGARI 、CHLOE、CHANEL、COACH、Ｍen's Uno Taiwan、Nespresso、M·A·C、ZENITH、SHIATZY CHEN夏姿、三采文化 、Maserati 、美商默沙東藥廠、忠泰建設、實儀科技有限公司、Loro Piana、美之心、Harry Winston、Leonard 、meli melo、義米花imihwa、Maybelline Taiwan 媚比琳、奧美廣告、ASUS、Audemars Piguet、The Macallan、MINI COOPER、Audemars Piguet、La Vie雜誌、MIKIMOTO、舒味思Schweppes、ISSEY MIYAKE、De Beers、丞石建設 尚未更新待補。

講座內容方向：

「藝術家、工作室中小型企業生存-探討議題」

「關於生存。」

藝術工作者能吃飽嗎？
藝術家一個月如何月入3萬？
藝術工作者如何一個月入5萬？
藝術工作者如何一個月100萬？
藝術工作者如何一個月300萬？
藝術工作者如何一個月500萬？
我要如何報價我的作品？
斜槓藝術家當道？
我到底要從哪哪開始？第一步？
品牌經營好困難？台灣品牌不好生存嗎？難道只能作大眾喜好的品牌嗎？贏不了海外品牌？

「關於行銷。」

了解藝術家行銷的基本概念，如何去海外展覽？
藝博會是如何運作的？ 是否一定跟藝廊合作？
現今狀況如何投放Facebook廣告？
基礎數據分析，基礎投放廣告概念、一頁式廣告好用？還是網站？ 如何對抗IOS 14隱私政策？
實體通路宣傳效果，紙本媒體的宣傳效果？
自媒體的內容流量好，還是主流媒體流量？變現價值？

「關於財務與擴張。」

藝術家工作者需要了解多少財務知識？
我要貸款嗎？藝術工作者能貸款嗎？
如何找合夥人？
如何跨投資開店？
如何跟銀行、融資公司、投資人保持良好關係的基本觀念？
我要擴張嗎？小小的不好嗎？
需要天使投資人嗎？
需要增加短期債務還是長期債務？
公司需要購買不動產或土地嗎？
公司的社會責任與定位？

Hello my friend 👋🏻 Join us Live now

☀️我是發展商，不是中介。☀️

➡️澳洲項目
整個項目共140個土地物業，喺其他地區已經賣出左超過6成。
👍🏻香港配額只有26個。
🤩 名副其實Dream Life，買地+建屋 House+Land 僅由60萬澳元起！
🤩每一塊土地面積均超過4萬呎，您可以打造屬於自己的8千呎獨立屋，擁有自己的私家泳池、網球場、籃球場等，實現「屋企大過足球場」夢想！

➡️今天 15/8 (星期日) 3pm 會有個線上講座，
我公司General Manager 會主講，
我地公司既律師事務所律師亦會同場解答大家各種問題。
用手機都可以觀看的。

☀️☀️☀️☀️☀️
上立傳林莊園
Parklands @ Clarendon
【傳承貴族寶地 築構傳奇夢想】

簡介：
🤩位於澳洲「陽光之州」剛成功申辦2032奧運既 Brisbane 布里斯班。
🤩整個項目雄據超過一千萬平方呎超大地皮。
🤩CO DEVELOPER 為擁有超過50年澳洲房地產開發綜合經驗既Parklands Property Group。
🤩我公司剛榮獲知名英文媒體集團HONG KONG LIVING 頒授 "Best International Property Developer 2021" 。

🤩<💎貴族寶地> 地皮源自1904年的貴族會所，地皮總面積超過101.1萬㎡ (約 5.3 個維園之大)，只供140個大戶專享。
🤩<🔮超豪華獨立屋>永久業權房地產，世代相傳。其中85塊別墅地皮面積超過5,000㎡，供您靈活興建地下層、室外私家泳池、網球場等，隨心築起夢想藍圖。
🤩<🛍️成熟社區>距昆士蘭州人口增長最快的Ipswich城區只需十數分鐘車程，1公里附近則有Lowood社區，鄰近購物中心、診所、警察局、消防局、教堂、超市、昆士蘭大學，多所中學及幼稚園等，生活所需，近在咫尺。

☀️我是發展商，不是中介。☀️
https://www.facebook.com/juwai.asia.hk/videos/572903823707688/

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”

豐盛國際為您推介馬來西亞2023年落成全新樓盤「Alpinia Residence 高士軒」，位於森美蘭州最大型的綜合城市Putra Nilai。物業鄰近吉隆坡國際機場及馬來西亞最大的大學城，學生人數高達35,000人，租賃市場龐大。業主可將單位以共居空間形式出租，租金回報可高達9厘！

豐盛國際聯同香港共居租務管理公司「安怡居」為閣下提供一站式招租及管理服務，方便閣下在香港安心賺取投資回報。

「Alpinia Residence 高士軒」單位總價只需115萬港元起，首付只須樓價30%，入伙時更有長年期高成數按揭！歡迎閣下預約諮詢與專家交流，享用多種獨家優惠，包括全屋精美裝修、傢俬、雙車位、律師費、外國人買家特別稅、一年租金回贈及Nilai Springs Golf Club永久會籍。

預約專人一對一諮詢及參觀展銷廳：
WhatsApp：(852) 5680 2581 (https://wa.link/8lg9mo)
電郵：info@hkepc.hk
如欲了解更多，請瀏覽：https://www.hkepc.hk/alpiniaresidence

#馬來西亞樓盤 #高士軒 #AlpiniaResidence

《先選擇戰場，再選擇戰術!》做生意如打仗， 如何「名成利就」?

前幾日，有個朋友，佢家族做開地產發展， 即係收購重建，工商舖投資， 買樓收租咁啦!

我同佢傾計嘅時候，佢就問我: 「Edwin....?」佢想地產界出名啲，點做得到? 費事開佢名，Let's him David.

我同佢講: 「我覺得你講嘢好虛喎! 出名啲? 你由 IFC 100樓跌落街都出名啦。」 你出名目的係為乜嘢先?

佢回答: 「為知名度，為搵到更多錢。 希望日後喺業界都更加舉足輕重。 升官發財咁囉好。」

我同佢講 "If you can define your battlefield, you can win any battle. " 但首先，you have to define your battlefield.

如果你可以選擇戰場，你再用啱嘅戰術，你能夠打勝任何一場仗。 但首先，你要選擇戰場!

唔好講人，講我自己。 工廈我唔掂，office我唔掂，住宅我唔掂，菲律賓/非洲/車位/骨灰龕，即使劏場(無陰公)，我全部唔掂。 基本上，我乜都唔掂，除咗喺條街，五千萬以下嘅街舖。

但我夠膽同你講， 幾千萬以下嘅街舖，喺香港冇人夠我嚟。 過去幾年能夠係市場道，買入一間舖，轉手賣返出去，即使個市唔升，甚至乎有社運加肺炎，個市大跌咗，都能夠賺到錢嘅， 全香港只得49單，我李根興一間公司就佔咗26單，市佔率5成以上。 我夠膽同李嘉誠、李兆基、鄧成波、黎永滔、梁紹鴻等大孖沙講，佢哋喺市場上買一舖再轉手賣出賺錢嘅宗數嘅總和，唔夠我一個多。 再加上我日睇舖，夜睇舖，日研究，夜研究，又出書，又拍片， 持續地，風風雨雨，社運肺炎不改地重覆地做，拍足二三千條片，自然係舖界就出名。

當然一涉足全幢嘅工廈、商廈、成個地盤，我同以上嘅大孖沙就冇得比，佢哋身家多我幾百幾千倍。 喺佢眼中，我可能只係喺道玩緊泥沙。

It's OK。起碼我玩泥沙，都要專注玩到第一。 玩玩下，持續地玩，玩十年，玩幾十年，分分鐘就會累積成沙丘，山谷，成座山，成個城，you will see。

我同David佢講: 「你依家收購重建全香港可能排第24，炒樓可能排第67，舖位可能排第38，工廈Office 就排第17，身家你排第167。老實說，咁人哋點記得你呢? 排第六第七都唔記得啦，何況排第67? 如果你真係想實實在在，想出名嘅話，唔係博出位喎， 係實實在在咁有料到，你一定要打好根基，define your battlefield， 重新定義你嘅戰場，咁你就有機會戰勝每一場仗 win any battle。 總之你要揀好一範，你係全港第一， 全香港最專，日日做，持續做，咁就實實在在，唔係吹水哋，出名啦。

信我啦，短線你可能會賺少啲。但長遠，「名成」就「利就」， 畀多五年十年廿年時間你會賺返嚟。

奈何，絕大部分香港地產界投資者，都係呢樣買，嗰樣買，呢樣做，嗰樣做。 但試問，咁又點長遠打低新鴻基/長江/恒基呢啲大型老牌發展商呢?

我同佢講，街舖只係我第一步， 專注做好之後，幾年幾十年後，好自然會伸展至其他工商/酒店/住宅類別。

但我同同事們講... Whatever we do, we need to be No. 1 in whatever we go into. "Define the battlefield, before we fight any battle."

即使廿年後嘅今日，我有機會起樓， 咁點打低新鴻基呢? 我可唔可以成為全香港起樓最多比年青人 co-living 嘅發展商? 或者，可唔可以成為全港起最多太空艙/納米樓比新來港人仕嘅發展商? 或者全港起樓最多俾愛狗愛貓人士住嘅發展商? 提供特別多寵物 friendly 嘅設施吸引買家? I don't know，whatever。

總之，whatever we do, we need to be number 1, otherwise we don't do it at all.

當然要 make sure 個 battlefield 唔好太窄、太淺，市場要咁深，賺到大錢才去打。 如果唔係，贏咗，你始終都仲係一個乞衣，無用!

記住，You can win any battle if you can define the battlefield.

你呢? 你盤生意? Where is your battlefield?

。。。。。。。。。

星期六我經常會搞下 Brainstorning-for-4 早餐/午餐會，大家交個朋友???? 互相俾下意見睇下盤生意有乜可以做好啲。

地點是中環。約3小時。

對象: 管理層/生意經營者/創業者

有興趣參加的話，請 whatsapp 你的名片給 Suki (我助手) 5566 1335。她會再聯絡你。

免費 (我不是靠這行搵食?)。我請食飯 ? Be friends ..... 多謝! 李根興 Edwin

www.edwinlee.com.hk

#李根興的生意哲學

購買李根興的四本書:
(1) 【李根興的生意哲學】(最新2020年6月出版 - 定價$198)
(2) 【買舖 要買得 PRO】(定價$198)
(3) 【買起金磚頭 - 商舖投資煉金術】(定價$128)
(4) 【買起金蛋鵝 - 生意營商之道】(定價$128)

每本+$30 本地順豐快遞。

想有李根興親筆簽名及 personal message，可跟以下指示付款，whatsapp 付款紀錄給Suki (+852) 5566 1335。.

(1) PayMe：(付款鏈結) https://qr.payme.hsbc.com.hk/2/XnedEJjfaG6ipAmbSoYWP

(2) FPS轉數快 or Alipay：97453555

(3) Citibank花旗銀行戶口：
250-390 10935983 (Lee Edwin Kan Hing)

(4) Bank of China 中國銀行戶口：
012-878-2-0106664 (Lee Edwin Kan Hing)

(5) HSBC 滙豐銀行戶口：
828-594853-833 (Lee Edwin Kan Hing)

(6) Wing Lung永隆銀行戶口：
020-644-0000-3123 (Bridgeway Development Company Limited)

(7) Paypal to edwinlee@bwfund.com

?付款後，請將以下資料whatsapp至+852 5566 1335 (Suki)：
(1) 入數紀錄
(2) 你希望Edwin在新書上寫什麼名字 或是 “BLANK”?
(3) 取書方法(書本寄出的順序會以收到入數資料的先後次序發出)：
- 盛滙辦公室領取：中環皇后大道中16-18號新世界大廈一期1502至3室，辦工時間: 逢星期一至五, 早上9:00至下午6:00 (午飯時間: 中午1:00-2:00)，電話 2830 1111。
- 順豐快遞：請提供收件人名稱及地址 (香港及澳門，每本需額外加HK$30運費)
- 海外郵件：郵局平郵寄出(每本需額外加HK$70運費)，由於疫情關係郵遞需時1個月至3個月不等

「共居」(Co-living)在外國很流行，而香港的兩棟共享居住空間「書匯」亦即將於9月落成，本集《創業個案》請來背後創造團隊介紹
▼▼查看更多▼▼
諗sir樓換樓► https://goo.gl/wdyI3E
星級理財 ►https://goo.gl/CgCLte
新盤速遞 ►https://goo.gl/JRL1j0
《經濟一週》FACEBOOK專頁 ►http://facebook.com/edigest/