Question 1

or rather meaning全聯建築技術機構 -許偉揚.瓦建設計 在Facebook 的評價

Accepted Answer

921大地震 (集集大地震)，在1999年9月21日 凌晨1點47分15.9秒發生在臺灣中部山區的逆斷層型地震，總共持續大約102秒。這場地震造成2,415人罹難，29人失蹤，11,305人受傷，51,711棟房屋全倒，53,768棟房屋半倒。今年的 #中秋節，恰逢 #921大地震22周年， 回首山河變色那一夜，我們更珍惜與家人團圓聚首的這一天 ! 九二一紀念型式  / 2002遠東國際數位建築競圖獎01-INTRODUTIONTherefore before the memorial form does not yet model,What does – our attempt that I ask first is memorial?Then artificial corpus city of civilization that construct or purchase, how many thousand years since then, always tell to say with the story that the nature match. But at win the nature at the same time, but neglect the unknowable power of great universe.Usually in the nature of breakage of at the same time, crisis is hatching. This legal case, primarily and just attempt by the innate character that the formation of the memorial hall study the affairs to celebrate why? How the memory of the affairs of disaster is through concrete of emersion of building space.02-Site The choice of the position of base also not is to in advance plan to like of, but is through the imagine of the concept of design and filter but find out to most have to symbolize the base of the meaning. In fact ,921 the first step of memorial hall of earthquakeses plan, and then hope the memorial place is an occurrence on aly purely of the earthquake break the layer to take, rather than the death and harm of earthquake is miserably heavy location. With one kind of more detached attitude, afresh come considering the relation of mankind and nature.03-ConceptWhole celebrates the scope of amenity, from the dam of the deformation, along seismicly break the layer to take to extend to the big bridge that dilapidated. Artificial with not artificial coexistence is on the earth crust of this deformation. Install the project: dam is with the memorial entrance of amenity of big each conduct and actions of bridge, whole celebrate the space to have no any word of text and record of like diagram, and only come illustrating all facts with the glossary of space. 04-Space 斷&續Break- parable deformation and despair Continuously- the parable continues and eternity Interesting is, the break and continuously is a logic to exist together. Thering is break then can describe the continuously, thering is continuously then can describe the break  on the text word performance, horary indetermination, convert the memorial describing spatially, become to space epidermis infinite imagine. -Concerning inside and outsides of the building skin layer -As for earth crust skin layer move and motionless.

Question 2

or rather meaning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

or rather meaningTaipei Ethereum Meetup 在Facebook 的評價

Accepted Answer

📜 [專欄新文章] Uniswap v3 Features Explained in Depth

✍️ 田少谷 Shao

📥 歡迎投稿： https://medium.com/taipei-ethereum-meetup #徵技術分享文 #使用心得 #教學文 #medium

Once again the game-changing DEX 🦄 👑

Image source: https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/

Outline

0. Intro1. Uniswap & AMM recap2. Ticks 3. Concentrated liquidity4. Range orders: reversible limit orders5. Impacts of v36. Conclusion

0. Intro

The announcement of Uniswap v3 is no doubt one of the most exciting news in the DeFi place recently 🔥🔥🔥

While most have talked about the impact v3 can potentially bring on the market, seldom explain the delicate implementation techniques to realize all those amazing features, such as concentrated liquidity, limit-order-like range orders, etc.

Since I’ve covered Uniswap v1 & v2 (if you happen to know Mandarin, here are v1 & v2), there’s no reason for me to not cover v3 as well ✅

Thus, this article aims to guide readers through Uniswap v3, based on their official whitepaper and examples made on the announcement page. However, one needs not to be an engineer, as not many codes are involved, nor a math major, as the math involved is definitely taught in your high school, to fully understand the following content 😊😊😊

If you really make it through but still don’t get shxt, feedbacks are welcomed! 🙏

There should be another article focusing on the codebase, so stay tuned and let’s get started with some background noise!

1. Uniswap & AMM recap

Before diving in, we have to first recap the uniqueness of Uniswap and compare it to traditional order book exchanges.

Uniswap v1 & v2 are a kind of AMMs (automated market marker) that follow the constant product equation x * y = k, with x & y stand for the amount of two tokens X and Y in a pool and k as a constant.

Comparing to order book exchanges, AMMs, such as the previous versions of Uniswap, offer quite a distinct user experience:

AMMs have pricing functions that offer the price for the two tokens, which make their users always price takers, while users of order book exchanges can be both makers or takers.

Uniswap as well as most AMMs have infinite liquidity¹, while order book exchanges don’t. The liquidity of Uniswap v1 & v2 is provided throughout the price range [0,∞]².

Uniswap as well as most AMMs have price slippage³ and it’s due to the pricing function, while there isn’t always price slippage on order book exchanges as long as an order is fulfilled within one tick.

In an order book, each price (whether in green or red) is a tick. Image source: https://ftx.com/trade/BTC-PERP

¹ though the price gets worse over time; AMM of constant sum such as mStable does not have infinite liquidity

² the range is in fact [-∞,∞], while a price in most cases won’t be negative

³ AMM of constant sum does not have price slippage

2. Tick

The whole innovation of Uniswap v3 starts from ticks.

For those unfamiliar with what is a tick:

Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tick.asp

By slicing the price range [0,∞] into numerous granular ticks, trading on v3 is highly similar to trading on order book exchanges, with only three differences:

The price range of each tick is predefined by the system instead of being proposed by users.

Trades that happen within a tick still follows the pricing function of the AMM, while the equation has to be updated once the price crosses the tick.

Orders can be executed with any price within the price range, instead of being fulfilled at the same one price on order book exchanges.

With the tick design, Uniswap v3 possesses most of the merits of both AMM and an order book exchange! 💯💯💯

So, how is the price range of a tick decided?

This question is actually somewhat related to the tick explanation above: the minimum tick size for stocks trading above 1$ is one cent.

The underlying meaning of a tick size traditionally being one cent is that one cent (1% of 1$) is the basis point of price changes between ticks, ex: 1.02 — 1.01 = 0.1.

Uniswap v3 employs a similar idea: compared to the previous/next price, the price change should always be 0.01% = 1 basis point.

However, notice the difference is that in the traditional basis point, the price change is defined with subtraction, while here in Uniswap it’s division.

This is how price ranges of ticks are decided⁴:

Image source: https://uniswap.org/whitepaper-v3.pdf

With the above equation, the tick/price range can be recorded in the index form [i, i+1], instead of some crazy numbers such as 1.0001¹⁰⁰ = 1.0100496621.

As each price is the multiplication of 1.0001 of the previous price, the price change is always 1.0001 — 1 = 0.0001 = 0.01%.

For example, when i=1, p(1) = 1.0001; when i=2, p(2) = 1.00020001.

p(2) / p(1) = 1.00020001 / 1.0001 = 1.0001

See the connection between the traditional basis point 1 cent (=1% of 1$) and Uniswap v3’s basis point 0.01%?

Image source: https://tenor.com/view/coin-master-cool-gif-19748052

But sir, are prices really granular enough? There are many shitcoins with prices less than 0.000001$. Will such prices be covered as well?

Price range: max & min

To know if an extremely small price is covered or not, we have to figure out the max & min price range of v3 by looking into the spec: there is a int24 tick state variable in UniswapV3Pool.sol.

Image source: https://uniswap.org/whitepaper-v3.pdf

The reason for a signed integer int instead of an uint is that negative power represents prices less than 1 but greater than 0.

24 bits can cover the range between 1.0001 ^ (2²³ — 1) and 1.0001 ^ -(2)²³. Even Google cannot calculate such numbers, so allow me to offer smaller values to have a rough idea of the whole price range:

1.0001 ^ (2¹⁸) = 242,214,459,604.341

1.0001 ^ -(2¹⁷) = 0.000002031888943

I think it’s safe to say that with a int24 the range can cover > 99.99% of the prices of all assets in the universe 👌

⁴ For implementation concern, however, a square root is added to both sides of the equation.

How about finding out which tick does a price belong to?

Tick index from price

The answer to this question is rather easy, as we know that p(i) = 1.0001^i, simply takes a log with base 1.0001 on both sides of the equation⁴:

Image source: https://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php

Let’s try this out, say we wanna find out the tick index of 1000000.

Image source: https://ncalculators.com/number-conversion/log-logarithm-calculator.htm

Now, 1.0001¹³⁸¹⁶² = 999,998.678087146. Voila!

⁵ This formula is also slightly modified to fit the real implementation usage.

3. Concentrated liquidity

Now that we know how ticks and price ranges are decided, let’s talk about how orders are executed in a tick, what is concentrated liquidity and how it enables v3 to compete with stablecoin-specialized DEXs (decentralized exchange), such as Curve, by improving the capital efficiency.

Concentrated liquidity means LPs (liquidity providers) can provide liquidity to any price range/tick at their wish, which causes the liquidity to be imbalanced in ticks.

As each tick has a different liquidity depth, the corresponding pricing function x * y = k also won’t be the same!

Each tick has its own liquidity depth. Image source: https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/

Mmm… examples are always helpful for abstract descriptions 😂

Say the original pricing function is 100(x) * 1000(y) = 100000(k), with the price of X token 1000 / 100 = 10 and we’re now in the price range [9.08, 11.08].

If the liquidity of the price range [11.08, 13.08] is the same as [9.08, 11.08], we don’t have to modify the pricing function if the price goes from 10 to 11.08, which is the boundary between two ticks.

The price of X is 1052.63 / 95 = 11.08 when the equation is 1052.63 * 95 = 100000.

However, if the liquidity of the price range [11.08, 13.08] is two times that of the current range [9.08, 11.08], balances of x and y should be doubled, which makes the equation become 2105.26 * 220 = 400000, which is (1052.63 * 2) * (110 * 2) = (100000 * 2 * 2).

We can observe the following two points from the above example:

Trades always follow the pricing function x * y = k, while once the price crosses the current price range/tick, the liquidity/equation has to be updated.

√(x * y) = √k = L is how we represent the liquidity, as I say the liquidity of x * y = 400000 is two times the liquidity of x * y = 100000, as √(400000 / 100000) = 2.

What’s more, compared to liquidity on v1 & v2 is always spread across [0,∞], liquidity on v3 can be concentrated within certain price ranges and thus results in higher capital efficiency from traders’ swapping fees!

Let’s say if I provide liquidity in the range [1200, 2800], the capital efficiency will then be 4.24x higher than v2 with the range [0,∞] 😮😮😮 There’s a capital efficiency comparison calculator, make sure to try it out!

Image source: https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/

It’s worth noticing that the concept of concentrated liquidity was proposed and already implemented by Kyper, prior to Uniswap, which is called Automated Price Reserve in their case.⁵

⁶ Thanks to Yenwen Feng for the information.

4. Range orders: reversible limit orders

As explained in the above section, LPs of v3 can provide liquidity to any price range/tick at their wish. Depending on the current price and the targeted price range, there are three scenarios:

current price < the targeted price range

current price > the targeted price range

current price belongs to the targeted price range

The first two scenarios are called range orders. They have unique characteristics and are essentially fee-earning reversible limit orders, which will be explained later.

The last case is the exact same liquidity providing mechanism as the previous versions: LPs provide liquidity in both tokens of the same value (= amount * price).

There’s also an identical product to the case: grid trading, a very powerful investment tool for a time of consolidation. Dunno what’s grid trading? Check out Binance’s explanation on this, as this topic won’t be covered!

In fact, LPs of Uniswap v1 & v2 are grid trading with a range of [0,∞] and the entry price as the baseline.

Range orders

To understand range orders, we’d have to first revisit how price is discovered on Uniswap with the equation x * y = k, for x & y stand for the amount of two tokens X and Y and k as a constant.

The price of X compared to Y is y / x, which means how many Y one can get for 1 unit of X, and vice versa the price of Y compared to X is x / y.

For the price of X to go up, y has to increase and x decrease.

With this pricing mechanism in mind, it’s example time!

Say an LP plans to place liquidity in the price range [15.625, 17.313], higher than the current price of X 10, when 100(x) * 1000(y) = 100000(k).

The price of X is 1250 / 80 = 15.625 when the equation is 80 * 1250 = 100000.

The price of X is 1315.789 / 76 = 17.313 when the equation is 76 * 1315.789 = 100000.

If now the price of X reaches 15.625, the only way for the price of X to go even higher is to further increase y and decrease x, which means exchanging a certain amount of X for Y.

Thus, to provide liquidity in the range [15.625, 17.313], an LP needs only to prepare 80 — 76 = 4 of X. If the price exceeds 17.313, all 4 X of the LP is swapped into 1315.789 — 1250 = 65.798 Y, and then the LP has nothing more to do with the pool, as his/her liquidity is drained.

What if the price stays in the range? It’s exactly what LPs would love to see, as they can earn swapping fees for all transactions in the range! Also, the balance of X will swing between [76, 80] and the balance of Y between [1250, 1315.789].

This might not be obvious, but the example above shows an interesting insight: if the liquidity of one token is provided, only when the token becomes more valuable will it be exchanged for the less valuable one.

…wut? 🤔

Remember that if 4 X is provided within [15.625, 17.313], only when the price of X goes up from 15.625 to 17.313 is 4 X gradually swapped into Y, the less valuable one!

What if the price of X drops back immediately after reaching 17.313? As X becomes less valuable, others are going to exchange Y for X.

The below image illustrates the scenario of DAI/USDC pair with a price range of [1.001, 1.002] well: the pool is always composed entirely of one token on both sides of the tick, while in the middle 1.001499⁶ is of both tokens.

Image source: https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/

Similarly, to provide liquidity in a price range < current price, an LP has to prepare a certain amount of Y for others to exchange Y for X within the range.

To wrap up such an interesting feature, we know that:

Only one token is required for range orders.

Only when the current price is within the range of the range order can LP earn trading fees. This is the main reason why most people believe LPs of v3 have to monitor the price more actively to maximize their income, which also means that LPs of v3 have become arbitrageurs 🤯

I will be discussing more the impacts of v3 in 5. Impacts of v3.

⁷ 1.001499988 = √(1.0001 * 1.0002) is the geometric mean of 1.0001 and 1.0002. The implication is that the geometric mean of two prices is the average execution price within the range of the two prices.

Reversible limit orders

As the example in the last section demonstrates, if there is 4 X in range [15.625, 17.313], the 4 X will be completely converted into 65.798 Y when the price goes over 17.313.

We all know that a price can stay in a wide range such as [10, 11] for quite some time, while it’s unlikely so in a narrow range such as [15.625, 15.626].

Thus, if an LP provides liquidity in [15.625, 15.626], we can expect that once the price of X goes over 15.625 and immediately also 15.626, and does not drop back, all X are then forever converted into Y.

The concept of having a targeted price and the order will be executed after the price is crossed is exactly the concept of limit orders! The only difference is that if the range of a range order is not narrow enough, it’s highly possible that the conversion of tokens will be reverted once the price falls back to the range.

As price ranges follow the equation p(i) = 1.0001 ^ i, the range can be quite narrow and a range order can thus effectively serve as a limit order:

When i = 27490, 1.0001²⁷⁴⁹⁰ = 15.6248.⁸

When i = 27491, 1.0001²⁷⁴⁹¹ = 15.6264.⁸

A range of 0.0016 is not THAT narrow but can certainly satisfy most limit order use cases!

⁸ As mentioned previously in note #4, there is a square root in the equation of the price and index, thus the numbers here are for explantion only.

5. Impacts of v3

Higher capital efficiency, LPs become arbitrageurs… as v3 has made tons of radical changes, I’d like to summarize my personal takes of the impacts of v3:

Higher capital efficiency makes one of the most frequently considered indices in DeFi: TVL, total value locked, becomes less meaningful, as 1$ on Uniswap v3 might have the same effect as 100$ or even 2000$ on v2.

The ease of spot exchanging between spot exchanges used to be a huge advantage of spot markets over derivative markets. As LPs will take up the role of arbitrageurs and arbitraging is more likely to happen on v3 itself other than between DEXs, this gap is narrowed … to what extent? No idea though.

LP strategies and the aggregation of NFT of Uniswap v3 liquidity token are becoming the blue ocean for new DeFi startups: see Visor and Lixir. In fact, this might be the turning point for both DeFi and NFT: the two main reasons of blockchain going mainstream now come to the alignment of interest: solving the $$ problem 😏😏😏

In the right venue, which means a place where transaction fees are low enough, such as Optimism, we might see Algo trading firms coming in to share the market of designing LP strategies on Uniswap v3, as I believe Algo trading is way stronger than on-chain strategies or DAO voting to add liquidity that sort of thing.

After reading this article by Parsec.finance: The Dex to Rule Them All, I cannot help but wonder: maybe there is going to be centralized crypto exchanges adopting v3’s approach. The reason is that since orders of LPs in the same tick are executed pro-rata, the endless front-running speeding-competition issue in the Algo trading world, to some degree, is… solved? 🤔

Anyway, personal opinions can be biased and seriously wrong 🙈 I’m merely throwing out a sprat to catch a whale. Having a different voice? Leave your comment down below!

6. Conclusion

That was kinda tough, isn’t it? Glad you make it through here 🥂🥂🥂

There are actually many more details and also a huge section of Oracle yet to be covered. However, since this article is more about features and targeting normal DeFi users, I’ll leave those to the next one; hope there is one 😅

If you have any doubt or find any mistake, please feel free to reach out to me and I’d try to reply AFAP!

Stay tuned and in the meantime let’s wait and see how Uniswap v3 is again pioneering the innovation of DeFi 🌟

Uniswap v3 Features Explained in Depth was originally published in Taipei Ethereum Meetup on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

👏 歡迎轉載分享鼓掌

關於 or rather meaning ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

「or rather meaning」的推薦目錄：

or rather meaning 在 全聯建築技術機構 -許偉揚.瓦建設計 Facebook 的最讚貼文

About author

or rather meaning 在 江魔的魔界（Kong Keen Yung 江健勇） Facebook 的最佳貼文

About author

or rather meaning 在 Taipei Ethereum Meetup Facebook 的最佳貼文

About author

or rather meaning 在 一二三渡辺 Youtube 的最佳解答

About author

or rather meaning 在 吳嘉熙 Cheronna Youtube 的最佳解答

About author

or rather meaning 在 一二三渡辺 Youtube 的最佳解答

About author

你可能也想看看

搜尋相關連結

or rather meaning 在全聯建築技術機構 -許偉揚.瓦建設計 Facebook 的最讚貼文

or rather meaning 在江魔的魔界（Kong Keen Yung 江健勇） Facebook 的最佳貼文

or rather meaning 在一二三渡辺 Youtube 的最佳解答

or rather meaning 在吳嘉熙 Cheronna Youtube 的最佳解答

or rather meaning 在一二三渡辺 Youtube 的最佳解答