Question 1

management: definition 在Facebook 的評價

Accepted Answer

哈佛知識分享:《做生意的三個 S》 - 七集介紹、第一及第二集。做生意有三個 S: Survive (生存), Sustain (持續), and Succeed (成功). 全文內容:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1grPxQjlN7OUFarSI3KYLgbQL1-7Bw3-X3uPTqV9_mZA/edit?usp=drivesdk。。。。。。。My hobby 《星期六早餐會》! 七/八/九月份早餐會 Topic: Applying Michael Porter to your business: How to compete and win! 哈佛分享: 如何應用「米高波特」於你盤生意? 點競爭? 點贏? 講起哈佛策略教授， 無人出名過 Michael Porter. 有幸我2017年在哈佛親身上過他教的課程， 今次早餐會同你分享，希望對你做生意亦有所啟發。有興趣參加啦 😃 每次限四位 (包括我)。 人多傾唔到計。7月/8/9月份，逢星期六早上9時開始，約三小時半。地點中環。對象: 中小企老闆/創業者/公司管理層，連我限4位。有興趣參加的話，請 whatsapp 你的名片給 Suki (我助手) (+852) 5566 1335。我唔係靠呢行搵食，免費，我請食早餐 😉 Be friends ..... 有機會到時見你。李根興 Edwinwww.edwinlee.com.hkwww.bwfund.com 聯絡李根興 whatsapp (+852) 90361143。。。。。。。1. 先講生存 survive - 即係收入多過支出。連錢都賺唔到，日日蝕做乞衣，唔好講嘢。 絕大部分生意，五年內都係生存唔到! 2. 再講持續性 sustain - 持續地賺到錢，持續地收入多過支出，Sustaining 養活咗99%中小企， 但佢哋永遠都係中小企 ，因為可能幾十年業績都浮浮沉沉! 3. 要成功就講 Succeed, I mean become really really Super Successful - How to win? 就要講策略 Strategy. Do you have a strategy? 你做生意有無策略? 根據哈佛最出名嘅策略教授 Michael Porter  The first test of a strategy is whether your value proposition is different from your rivals. If you are trying to serve the same customers and meet the same needs and sell at the same relative price, then you dont have a strategy.  如果你嘅價值主張係同你嘅競爭對手一樣， 即係話你服務緊同一班客， 解決緊同一問題， 收緊差唔多價錢的話， 哈佛教授米高波特就講你係「人做你做」，你「無策略」 。 長遠，你唔會賺大錢! You can only sustain, but cannot be super successful! 咁應該點? Understanding Michael Porter! 何謂競爭? 何謂策略? 如何勝出?  What is competition? What is strategy? How to win? Michael Porter 相信係仲在生最出名嘅大學策略教授， 佢1979年首次提出嘅 Porters Five Competitive Forces (行業競爭五大動力)， 1980提出嘅 Four Generic Strategies (四個一般策略)， 1985年再提出嘅 Value-Chain Analysis (價值鏈分析)， 讀過任何 business school 嘅同學都應該學過。 佢今年已經七十四歲， 唔知仲可以教多幾耐書，有幸我2017年去哈佛大學親身上過佢課程，畢生受用。今次我就一連七集，同你分享呢本書 Understnding Michael Porter。(1) Competition, whats the right mindset? 你應該點諗「競爭」? (2) What are the Industry Competitive 5 Forces? 什麼是行業的五大動力? 對你利潤有什麼影響? (3) Competitive advantage through your value chain 你的企業價值鏈如何令你有競爭優勢? (4) What is strategy? How do you create value? 什麼是策略 ? 你如何創造價值?(5) The trade-offs. 要「取」得更多，就要「捨」得更多。 做生意如何「取捨」? (6) Fit. 成間公司要言行一致! 全部力要向同一個方向走。(7) Continuity. 持續性，無得急! 路遙知馬力!有興趣聽多啲，就來我七/八月份星期六嘅早餐會啦! 下一集同你先講 (1) What is competition?  whats the right mindset? 乜嘢係「競爭」? 你應該點諗「競爭」?第一集:哈佛知識分享:《何謂競爭? 你應點諗競爭?》What is competition? Whats the right mindset? 一連七集: 今集同你先講《何謂競爭? 你應點諗競爭?》What is competition? Whats the right mindset? 做生意你可以 Me Too, Me Better 或者 .... Me What? 乜嘢? 等陣再講。Me too, 就係「人做你做」， 你要贏，只能夠鬥平!  同一碟乾炒牛河， 如果一樣味道，你就係要賣平啲，人哋先幫襯你。Me better，就係你做得叻啲，你做得好啲、快啲、靚啲、新啲， 咁你就可以收貴啲! 你碟乾炒牛河，真材實料的，好味啲，就可以賣貴啲。可惜前兩者，都係一個零和遊戲。 你贏，就人哋輸。 人哋贏，就你輸。個餅係得咁大，你日日講 market share (市場佔有率)，但無新行業價值製造過， 個餅冇大到。根據哈佛策略教授 Michael Porter， 做生意除咗 Me Too, Me Better, 你要盡量做到 NOT Me Best ... but ME ONLY. Be unique! 你做生意必需具獨特性。佢話做生意 there is simply NO BEST! 冇話「最好」，因為唔同人客有唔同需要，你嘅產品啱，他們自然有需求。你要「創造需要」! 包括我在內， 之前香港都無「商舖基金」，買賣舖只有鬥平鬥靚。 但如果間鋪又要靚，又賣得平，硬係無錢賺。唯有靠大市升。但萬一唔升? 一個社運/肺炎，馬上個個炒家/投資者停晒。 依家個市好啲， 馬上「短炒」出返曬嚟。 但我覺得做生意係唔可以靠個市升去賺錢。 要個市跌，甚至乎大跌，都搵到食，咁先至係一盤生意。 容許我好自豪地講，社運/肺炎後，我哋買入咗31間香港街舖，沽出咗11間，合共約港幣7.9億嘅街舖，沽得嘅，間間賺錢，論宗數及論回報，都係同期全港 by far，I mean really really by far 最多!  我哋點做? 就係因為我哋行咗 Michael Porter 所講嘅，Be Unique ... be ME ONLY. 根據呢本書，Understanding Michael Porter, 佢講 whats the right mind-set for competition? 你應該點諗競爭? 盡量得，你應該諗 Not be the the best, but be unique。 唔係要做到最好，而係做到最獨特。Not be number 1, but earn higher returns. 唔係要做到第一，而係要多啲回報，賺多啲錢! Not focus on market share, but focus on profits. 唔係要市佔率，係要利潤。Not serve the best customer with best product, but meet the diverse needs of target customers. 唔係要「最好」嘅產品，畀「最好」嘅客。而係 用唔同嘅產品，滿足唔同顧客嘅需求。Not compete by imitation, but compete by innovation. 唔係人做你做，而係要創新! Not ZERO SUM game, but POSITIVE SUM. 唔係「零和遊戲」、互相廝殺， 而係大家從不同層面創造價值， 可以有好多個贏家。記住競爭，唔代表你一定要贏人。 打到兩敗俱傷，又有乜意思呢?  如果即使你打唔打低人，自己能夠賺多啲錢，咁又 why not? 點解要去打低人呢? Strategy explains how an organization, faced with competition, will achieve superior performance. The definition is deceptively simple. by Michael Porter. 好的策略，就係能夠解釋到點解有競爭對手環境下，你公司依然能夠達致較高回報。Operation effectiveness is different from having a good strategy. 有高嘅營運效率，唔代表有好嘅策略。Michael Porter 話 Operation effectivness 就好似隻老鼠喺個圈入面係咁跑咁， 無論你點跑得快，你都只係繼續喺個圈入面。 你可以勤力啲、做得快啲、做得好啲，但始終你繼續都係喺個圈入面。但有好嘅策略，a good strategy , 就能幫你跳出呢個圈，帶去你想去嘅地方。If rivals all pursue the one best way to compete, they will find themselves on collision course. by Michael Porter「如果所有競爭對手，都朝著一個「做到最好」的方向競爭， 大家只會撞到頭破血流。」Strategic competition means choosing a path different from that of others.  by Michael Porter「策略性競爭是指揀一條同競爭對手唔同的路。」好似間茶餐廳咁， 你可以炒餸快啲，上菜快啲，服務好啲，埋單走多兩轉， 但係始終都係一間茶餐廳，只係做緊 Me Too 或者 Me Better. 人哋唔去你嗰間，就去另一間，係一個「零和遊戲」。 無論你點做得快啲、好啲，競爭對手一樣都會嘗試追上。 無策略，你會跑得好辛苦。 喺個圈入面繼續跑來跑去。另一種諗法，或者你可以把間茶餐廳， 變成專做外賣， 加埋其他餐廳上你平台， 加下加下，變下變下，變成間 Deliveroo。同前者一樣，大家都係做食，但你專做外賣，咁你會唔會係 more unique? 更獨特! Earn higher returns， compete by innovation AND 做大啲個餅 positive sum game 呢? 會唔會有原本唔想食茶餐廳嘅人，都叫咗外賣返屋企食呢? Deliveroo 依家倫敦上市嘅市值係超過500億港幣， 試問有幾多間茶餐廳或飲食集團能做到呢?唔想咁大改變? 試想想賣漢堡包。 麥當勞係全球最大快餐店，唔駛講。 佢嘅漢堡包係賣得最快，最多! 但你識唔識呢個女人? Lynsi Snyder. In-N-Out Burger 第三代接班人。Michael Porter 話相比起麥當勞，佢唔係要最快最大最多，In-N-Out Burger 係要最新鮮嘅食材，never frozen, never microwaved，最有傳統風味，最具 family tradition 家族色彩， 餐牌/秘方基本上70年都不變過。McDonald / Burger King 餐牌有超過80樣嘢揀，佢只得少過15。 佢要嘅係家庭傳統 family tradition！ 佢係要做少啲，做好啲，每人分多啲。雖然每間分店都賺到錢， 以舖比舖，平均每間In-N-Out Burger 舖嘅營業額係每年450萬美金，高過麥當勞的舖平均每年260萬美金，高出七成。每間 In-N-Out 舖嘅 Profit margin 估計高達20％，比同行競爭對手亦高出一倍， 佢就係要特登開少啲，開慢啲。用咗70年時間， 只係開咗三百幾間，全部自己直接經營兼自置物業， 為咗容易管理，絕大部分分店都係喺美國西岸。 佢每開一間分店往往啲人都要大排長龍， 有人揸幾個鐘頭車，甚至乎搭飛機/酒店過夜專登去食。...... 因為每間舖賺到錢，個個員工人工都特別高。例如，根據網上薪酬統計網站   Glassdoor.com，In-N-Out Burger 嘅 Store Manager 店長平均人工加花紅，係年薪美金16萬3千元。 麥當勞? 係美國只係4萬4千美金。In-N-Out Burger 高出近3倍。 最基層員工，人工都比市場高出5成。人工高，自然員工做耐啲，平均Store Manager 店長都做17年，員工上下一家人感覺強啲，對人客笑容自然多啲，服務好啲。比起麥當勞，佢哋唔係鬥快鬥多。In-N-Out Burger 每個客往往都要等成起碼十分鐘先有漢堡包食。提起 Mobile ordering 手機落單， 咁啲人客唔使等咁耐? 聽下佢 CEO Lynsi Snyder 點講? ...... Be definition of Michael Porter, In-N-Out Burger is pursuing a different path from that of others. 行緊條自己嘅路。Be unique! Not to be number 1, but to earn higher returns. Not to focus on market share, but on profit.  唔同嘅客有唔同需求，既然自己回報可以高啲，點解需要打低競爭對手呢? Positive Sum Game, 個餅係做大咗!  雖然佢聲稱永遠都唔搞 franchise，永遠唔搞上市，全部自己親自經營，根據2021年福布斯富豪榜，In-N-Out 第三代老闆 Lynsi Snyder 身家現有36億美金，係榜內最年輕女士。 麥當勞嘅創辦人呢? 都唔知去咗邊度! 你呢? 你又打算點樣同人競爭? 記住，Michael Porter 話:In the vast majority of businesses, there is simply no such thing as the best. 絕大部分嘅生意， 冇嘢叫做絕對嘅「最好」! BE UNIQUE. 做到 ME ONLY! Winning without beating others! 「唔使打低競爭對手都勝出!」咁先至係「贏」嘅最高境界。有興趣聽多啲 Michael Porter，就來我七/八月份星期六嘅早餐會啦! 下集我再同你講 (2) What are the Industry Competitive 5 Forces? 什麼是行業的五大動力? 對你利潤有什麼影響? 有時間就睇埋幾年前 CBS 對In-N-Out Burger 嘅報導，家族經歷過幾次嘅悲劇，依家留到第三代，佢哋嘅堅持可能亦對你做生意有所啟發。第二集:哈佛知識分享: What are the Industry Competitive 5 Forces? 什麼是行業的五大動力? 對你利潤有什麼影響? The real point of competition is not to beat rivals. Its to earn profits. 競爭，最重要唔係要打低競爭 對手，而係要賺錢!  - My favorite quote from Michael Porter. 今次一連七集同你講 Michael Porter. 上集同你講咗《何謂競爭? 你應點諗競爭?》What is competition? Whats the right mindset? 今集同你講 (2) What are the Industry Competitive 5 Forces? 什麼是行業的五大動力? 對你利潤有什麼影響? 巴菲特 Warren Buffett 曾經講過: “When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for poor fundamental economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.”當好聲譽嘅經理， 遇上差回報聲譽嘅行業，通常係行業嘅聲譽會繼續留低。因此我經常話「先揀行業，後諗點做!」 做生意就好似賽馬比賽咁，要勝出，行業就係隻馬，老闆就係個騎師。 隻馬識飛嘅，騎師煲兩口煙都能勝出， 如果佢再加把勁， 鞭多兩下，咁就不得了， 可能賺到盤滿缽滿! 但如果隻馬係跛嘅，唔通騎師跑埋一份咩?! 咁就騎師唯有先要醫番好隻馬，再去比賽， 咁勝出機會率才更大。但如何分析隻馬 (即係個行業) fit 唔 fit? 根據哈佛大學最出名嘅策略教授 Michael Porter，佢1979年首次提出嘅 Porters Five Competitive Forces (行業競爭五大動力)， 從五個層面分析個行業得唔得， 亦都係可以就住呢五個層面加強隻馬嘅競爭力。分別係: (1) Bargaining Power of Buyers 買家的議價能力。 (2) Bargaining Power of Suppliers 供應商的議價能力。(3) Barriers to Entry 入行門檻。 (4) Threat of Substitutes 代替品的威脅。 (5) Internal Rivalry 內部競爭的激烈程度。 近年好多人提出，應再加多第6個: (6) Availability of Complements 互補商品的存在。 要賺錢就係希望價錢 (Price) 高過成本 (Cost)， 相差越大，你就賺錢越多。 但你要賺錢，你要知道你唔單止係同你競爭對手爭緊， 你同一時間係同緊你嘅買家、供應商、代替品、及潛在入行競爭者爭! 逐個逐個同你講，因為: (1) 越大買家的議價能力 Bargaining Power of Buyers，就會把你價錢越撳低， 因為買家佢哋會講價，所以唔可以太依賴某個買家。 一般嚟講，如果最大嘅客戶佔你超過10%營業額，或者最大五個客戶佔你25%或以上營業額， 你就有customer concentration risk, 過份客戶集中的風險。 因為你好怕佢哋走， 佢哋議價能力就自然提升。 好多廠，某個歐美大客訂單都分分鐘佔咗超過一半生意額， 因此經常畀人牽住鼻子走，好多嘢做，但賺唔到錢。Powerful buyers will force prices down or demand more value in the product, thus capturing more of the value for themselves. by Michael Porter 「議價能力強嘅買家，會把價格推低或者對產品要求提升， 從而買家自己得到更大價值。」包括我自己在內， 前排某大美資基金，管理美金資產幾百億，話同俾我幾十億同我合作投資商舖，但條件多多， 又呢樣又嗰樣 ... 唔只一間，仲有好多其他，我全部 say No。 就係因為我唔想過份依靠某大客，當我無本事。 我想細細間，慢慢增長，玩耐啲。遠遠好過霎時間爆發得太快，遲早市況一逆轉就爆鑊。我成日話，我每季只係希望集資港幣6000萬，加我自己 top up 25%， 冇咁大個頭，唔好戴咁大頂帽 。我自己個 fund 每季集資，每年淨資產增長四五億港幣，每個月拉勻買入港幣5000萬街舖，沽2000萬，Im happy! 買下買下，好快就買足1000間街舖。要依賴就依賴我自己，信得過多好多。為咗增長，你又有冇過份依賴某個或幾個大客呢? 如果佢哋鏈你或者執咗，你又會點呢?仲有， 唔單止客人大，佢哋嘅議價能力先至強。如果你嘅產品係市場係冇乜差異化， no differentiation, 人做你做， me too strategy, 個個都係度格價的話，佢哋買家議價能力都係好強。因為人哋平一蚊，佢哋就走咗，buyers are very price sensitive, 你為咗留客，唯有減價。因此，you have to be different， 同其他競爭對手有所唔同， 咁即是你加價，買家都留低幫襯你。 但問心，你盤生意同人哋又有幾唔同呢? (2) 越大供應商的議價能力 Bargaining Power of Suppliers，就會把你成本提升，因為供應商佢哋會加價。員工、舖嘅業主都係間茶餐廳嘅供應商。 銀行就係財務公司嘅供應商， 我最大嘅供應商就係嗰班沽舖嘅業主， 因為每個月我洗緊五千萬入貨。Powerful suppliers will charge higher prices or insist on more favorable terms, lowering industry profitability. by Michael Porter 「議價力強嘅供應商，會收貴啲價錢，或者要求更有利嘅條款 ，導致降低成個行業嘅利潤率。」香港好多生意都係代理某品牌/產品或 franchise (特許經營)開始，佢哋都係供應商。但如果咁多年不斷都只係靠做代理/franchise，好就好，萬一外國某品牌易手或同第二代唔啱，咁就大鑊。Michael Porter 話，如果 switching cost (轉換成本)係高嘅， 例如果佢哋要重新當地請人 、重新開舖、重新鋪設個網絡，供應商都可能焗住留低，佢哋嘅 bargaining power (議價能力)會下降。 但如果， 一下子終止代理或 franchise 協議，就所有嘢歸佢，咁你就大鑊! 供應商嘅議價能力極強， 就好似香港嘅7-11咁。7-11而家在香港開到一千間分店，當中大約400間係特許經營。話就話係特許經營比創業者創業，實質上所有嘢都係歸牛奶公司 (7-11母公司)， 加盟者其實只係攞住嚿錢打份工， 話走就走，人客都唔知發生乜事。 問心，你同我都唔知邊間7-11是嗰400間特許經營。咁樣供應商的議價能力 bargaining power of supplier 就極強。 因此， 我認識好多711的加盟者， 勤力守規矩一定搵到食，但發達，住山頂洋樓養番狗?! 我 so far 仲未聽過。做生意目標，根據 Michael Porter, 就係要把你嘅供應商議價能力降低。 從多啲唔同渠道入貨，流程盡量標準化，好似大家樂/McDonalds 咁，咁對員工既依賴程度亦都會降低。 做代理嘅，就 make sure 即使唔做，啲人物、網絡係歸你。 我識好多朋友，都係一面做代理，另一邊就建立自己品牌， 打長短棍做生意。 代理係短棍(賺錢)，自己品牌係長棍(投資)，睇長線。你又打算點降低你對供應商嘅依賴程度， 增強你自己嘅議價能力呢? (3) 越低入行門檻 Barrier of Entry 就會把你價錢下降及成本提升， 因為多人入嚟爭，自然大家都減價促銷及加價搶人搶貨。Entry barriers protect an industry from newcomers who would add new capacity. by Michael Porter 入行門檻會減低新加入者增加產量。 產量多，自然價格下跌。 向供應放入貨都會多咗，亦都會搶高來貨價。 因此做生意嘅你，就要盡將個入行門檻提升。主要有三方法: (1) 做到好大，有規模經濟(economies of scale)， 咁你每件貨生產嘅平均成本就會下降，即是規模報酬遞增(increasing returns to scale)， 咁競爭對手就好難入嚟同你爭。(2) 做到好專， 只要你有某專業知識，人客就會好依賴獨有技能。 例如我自己唔單止淨係投資地產，我係專買街舖。 我唔單止係領展/黑石等大地產基金，大我唔夠他們大，但我係專買香港五六千萬以下街舖嘅商舖基金。 當你做得專，人客自然好難搵替代品。(3) 當多一個人客使用，對原本個人客價值就提升，this is what we call Network Effect (網絡效應)。例如whatsapp/wechat/facebook/youtube，全世界只得你一個人用就冇用，越人用對你嘅價值就提升。如果你有齊以上三樣嘢，恭喜你，新競爭對手好難入嚟同你爭! 你有排賺錢。 但如果你三樣都冇，你只係 Me too Me Better 嘅策略的話， 我估你只會繼續浮浮沉沉, survive (生存) and sustain (持續)唔難, 但好難 become super successful (好成功). 第四動力 : (4) 越大代替品的威脅 Threat of Substitites 就會把你價格下降， 因為人客可以選擇其他商品，唔駛用你。Substitutes  - products or services that meet the same basic need as the industrys product in a different way - put a cap on industry profitability.  by Michael Porter 「產品或者服務嘅代替品， 會把整個行業嘅利潤封頂。」例如 DVD rental 租碟， 令到好多人唔駛買碟. 有 Netflix 嘅 streaming 就唔駛再去租碟。 有高鐵就搭少啲飛機， 有whatsapp就打少啲電話， 有數碼相機就少人用菲林相機。Its all true! 因此你經常都要諗下你嘅行頭會唔會突然間有代替品 substitutes  去衝擊你成個行業。 咁你點應對呢?包括我自己在內，有網購，就自然落少間舖買嘢。 因此長遠舖價必定受網購影響。 但我只買街舖， 香港有大約有十萬間街舖， 我只想好似7-11咁，當中揸住一千間，我係業主。即1％。 我相信網購點發達，都唔會快過你行過條街口喝入去7-11買包嘢飲。 因此我揀舖都要好小心。 我只買街埔，係因為街舖冇新供應。 網站可以有好多個，商場可以再起一千個，但街鋪無。 啟德、東涌、將軍澳、明日大嶼都好，都係無街舖賣。 物以罕為貴。而我盡量都只買可以做飲食及服務業嘅街舖， 難被網購取代。如果純粹做零售、乾貨，投資就要好小心。你行頭嘅產品或者服務，又輕唔輕易被替代品取代呢?最後 (5) 越大內部競爭的激烈程度 Internal Rivalry 價格就越低及成本也越高，因為大家同行都鬥平鬥靚， 可能導致割喉式競爭。If rivalry is intense, companies compete away the value they create, passing it on to buyers in lower prices or dissipating it in higher costs of competing. by Michael Porter 如果行頭有割喉式競爭，任何價值製造嘅利潤， 都會因為減價或者成本上升而消失。咁你又點知道你個行頭易唔易會有割喉式競爭? 睇6樣嘢: (1) 大家競爭對手係唔係差唔多大細，好多好散。好似街市咁，咁就好容易減價競爭。 但如突然有一兩個大嘅龍頭冒起， 好似百佳/惠康咁，反而會穩定價格。(2) 大家賣嘅產品差唔多， 好容易格價。 例如手機品牌、電子產品。(3) 好多人入嚟爭，唔係為錢而爭， 而係為社會貢獻或者國家任務而爭。(4) 整體行業增長好慢， 甚至乎收縮，變成「困獸鬥」(5) 產品係 perishable 即係 時間係敵人! 呢一刻唔要，之後想要返都唔得。 例如: 酒店房，今晚唔住，聽日就有其他人。 機位今日唔答，聽日就已經飛走咗。 因此今日就大家都要劈價求售。(6) High Exit Barrier 高離開行業嘅門檻， 好多生意，唔係話走就走，好多面子面俾、好多員工要炒、好多數要找、 老豆、阿爺留落嚟， 阿孫阿仔焗住要做， 有生意但唔識變通嘅，唯有減價。Price competition is the most dangerous form of rivalry. by Michael Porter 價格競爭係最危險嘅競爭。 好彩我選擇買舖。因為間間街舖都唔同，有獨特，無炒家會入嚟做蝕本生意，即時今日唔減價賣，一百年後間舖都仲喺度，時間係朋友，舖價仲分分鐘升咗。自問，平時你又有幾大劈價求售嘅壓力呢? 你點樣可以做得獨特性，唔同人哋割喉式競爭呢?  把時間變成朋友呢?以上就係 Michael Porter 1979年首次提出嘅 Porters Five Competitive Forces (行業競爭五大動力)， 近年好多人都提倡應該有第六個。(6) Availability of Complements 互補商品的存在 (仲於有個好嘢!) 。越多就越把價錢提升及成本下降，因為多咗馬路 (車嘅 complements) 就自然更多人想買車， 更多人想買車，就自然車價格上升，每架車生產及銷售成本也下降。做餐廳嘅，Deliveroo 可能係 complements 互補品, 馬上送外賣成本下降。 做電動車嘅，多啲充電站就係互補品，令到多啲人買電動車。4G/5G 上網快咗，係手機遊戲嘅 completment. 唔同嘅 Apps 都係買手機嘅 completment. 越多人創業，都係我買舖嘅 complement. Michael Porter 話做生意，就要明白以上五加一項的行業推動力，點樣影響整個行業嘅利潤。 頭五樣，is not Add-Up effect，唔係睇總和，而係只要一個差至極點， 成個行頭及你盤生意好易玩完。 例如有咗手機網上新聞之後， threat of substitute 代替品嘅威脅，舊式嘅報紙檔/雜誌社就執一間少一間。 如果你做餐廳只得一間舖，咁多年來太依賴某業主單一位置， 唔知係咪因為風水好定心頭好，萬一業主一沽舖，下手買家大幅加租，盤生意也馬上玩完。記住 Bargain power of supplier 業主就係你供應商， 如果你冇得搬，佢議價能力就好強。因此，做生意你就係要盡量想辦法， 把握以上五加一動力，加強你自己嘅生意穩定性及賺錢能力。記住，一開場我話: The real point of competition is not to beat rivals. Its to earn profits. 競爭，最重要唔係要贏對手，而係要賺錢!  要賺錢，長遠賺得穩定，就要好好把握頭5大動力，把他們盡量推下降，及第6動力盡量拉上升。有興趣一齊研究下點做? 聽多啲 Michael Porter，就來我七/八月份星期六嘅早餐會啦! 下集我再同你講 (3) Competitive advantage through your value chain 你的企業價值鏈如何令你更具競爭優勢? 。。。。。My hobby 《星期六早餐會》! 七/八/九月份早餐會 Topic: Applying Michael Porter to your business: How to compete and win! 哈佛分享: 如何應用「米高波特」於你盤生意? 點競爭? 點贏? 講起哈佛策略教授， 無人出名過 Michael Porter. 有幸我2017年在哈佛親身上過他教的課程， 今次早餐會同你分享，希望對你做生意亦有所啟發。有興趣參加啦 😃 每次限四位 (包括我)。 人多傾唔到計。7月/8月份，逢星期六早上9時開始，約三小時半。地點中環。對象: 中小企老闆/創業者/公司管理層，連我限4位。有興趣參加的話，請 whatsapp 你的名片給 Suki (我助手) (+852) 5566 1335。我唔係靠呢行搵食，免費，我請食早餐 😉 Be friends ..... 有機會到時見你。李根興 Edwinwww.edwinlee.com.hkwww.bwfund.com 聯絡李根興 whatsapp (+852) 90361143#michael_porter #競爭策略

Question 2

management: definition江魔的魔界（Kong Keen Yung 江健勇） 在Facebook 的評價

Accepted Answer

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”

Question 3

management: definition外交部 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ROC（Taiwan） 在Facebook 的評價

Accepted Answer

【PRC夠了啦~ Let Taiwan Help】當全世界都知道，中方的惡意阻擋是「世界衛生組織」(WHO)未能將台灣完整納入技術性討論的主要障礙，BUT，中華人民共和國外交部居然說：「已經對台灣參與全球衛生事務做出妥善安排」(讓我翻個白眼先)，這凸顯中國政府公然說謊、誤導國際社會，不斷打壓台灣人民的健康人權。「一中原則」作為阻止台灣貢獻國際的說法已是陳腔濫調，中國持續將政治凌駕於健康人權的霸道行徑，外交部對此予以強烈譴責。只有台灣的民選政府才能在「世界衛生組織」及其他國際組織代表台灣2,350萬人民；台灣人民的健康人權由我國政府來守護，中國無權、也無能力代勞。台灣有能力也有意願協助全世界，以台灣成功的防疫經驗，參與WHO，一定能做出更多貢獻。#LetTaiwanHelp..#Taiwan does not belong to the PRC, and any claim to the contrary is a shameless lie, as the whole world is doubtless already aware. Nor did the PRC make any appropriate arrangement for Taiwan to avail of global public health mechanisms in the midst of the pandemic. This too is a shameless lie. Taiwans pandemic management is being run by the Taiwan government and on principles, such as #democracy, #freedom #transparency and concern for #HumanRights, that are incompatible with the authoritarian rule in the PRC! Using the anachronistic cliche that is the One China Principle as a way to prevent Taiwan from contributing to global public health is putting politics head of health and human rights. The 23.5 million people of Taiwan should have representation in an organization like the WHO that claims to #LeaveNoOneBehind.Its hard to find a more appropriate definition for shameless lie than these claims by the PRC.

關於 management: definition ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

「management: definition」的推薦目錄：

management: definition 在 Facebook 的精選貼文

About author

management: definition 在 江魔的魔界（Kong Keen Yung 江健勇） Facebook 的最佳解答

About author

management: definition 在 外交部 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ROC（Taiwan） Facebook 的最讚貼文

About author

management: definition 在 Herman Yeung Youtube 的精選貼文

About author

management: definition 在 電扶梯走左邊 Jacky Youtube 的最讚貼文

About author

management: definition 在 電扶梯走左邊 Jacky Youtube 的最佳解答

About author

你可能也想看看

搜尋相關連結

management: definition 在江魔的魔界（Kong Keen Yung 江健勇） Facebook 的最佳解答

management: definition 在外交部 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ROC（Taiwan） Facebook 的最讚貼文

management: definition 在電扶梯走左邊 Jacky Youtube 的最讚貼文

management: definition 在電扶梯走左邊 Jacky Youtube 的最佳解答