關於 respect for marriage act ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

“STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES”

On social media lately, you would have seen reactions towards a video of a professor advising girls to act a bit stupid if they wanna find a partner.
My ears burned the first time I heard that statement. In this era, with such qualifications and status how could one even imagine to utter such “advise” ! My fingers were quick to reply onto the comment box of the video..
but then i held back and analyse the whole situation.
Maybe that was not what she meant to say. sometimes you have an idea. You ran it thru your brains and it sounds perfectly academically fine. But then the words that flows out of your mouth is utterly different. not just different, it’s offensive and on the verge of being stark right rubbish!! You try to stop it from coming out but this verbal diarrhoea just won’t put a cork in it.
There are people and moments like that and when such moments happen it is usually taken into offence.
given the situation and given the tittle of the person saying these words. you can’t imagine it to have been what she meant. She is a clever, well learned professor that went thru years of studying and hard work to get that tittle from some big university somewhere. Haihhh .. or was it after marriage that she got her certificates?
no matter in any conditions, I personally believe in a relationship there should be equal respect and mutual understanding on both ends. One should never have to be put in a situation of having to act as another person (unless you r role playing ). Treat your partner how you want to be treated. No down playing or acting “STUPID” should need to happen. Be truthful. Learn to understand but always first be KIND. If that person wants you to just satisfy that fragment of his imagination and not accepting you for YOU. Then they are not the person that you should be with ever. ...
hmmm maybe the professor has some truth .. maybe that’s why I’m still SINGLE.. nahh I’m just UGLY and I’ll rather be ugly and single than have to be lie and be STUPID.
Anyways today I cooking “Acar Simpan Hari”

#resepibonda #resepisedap #asianrecipes #homecooking #foodporn

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”

【台美日共同守護印太安全】
　　
美國、日本、台灣三國智庫共同主辦「2020台美日三邊印太安全對話」，包括蔡英文總統、美國前國務院助卿坎博(Kurt Campbell)、前國防部印太安全助理部長薛瑞福(Randall Schriver)、日本前駐美大使佐佐木賢一郎等重要人士都與會。
　　
我也參與三國國會議員的對談，與羅致政委員、陳以信委員、美國聯邦眾議員貝拉(Ami Bera)以及日本眾議員鈴木馨祐，交流2020後的印太及台海情勢與願景。
　　
結果準備厚厚一疊的英文講稿幾乎沒派上用場，講太HIGH不小心就脫稿演出....。無論如何還是提供原本的講稿跟大家參詳，一起來練習英文吧：
　　
　　　　
2020 Taiwan-US-Japan Trilateral Indo-Pacific Security Dialogue

Hello moderator, fellow panelists, I am Taiwan legislator Freddy Lim.

This year, due to the pandemic, we can only conduct this panel online. I’m still very glad to be invited to attend this event and exchange ideas with these great panelists. Here I want to share my views on today’s main topic: “Challenges and Opportunities in the Indo-Pacific Region and the Taiwan Strait in 2020 & Beyond”.

First I want to start with the conventional positioning of Taiwan under the established international order.

After WWII, the international order led by the allies dragged Taiwan into China’s civil war. Since then, Taiwan's been struggling with the “One China” dispute, unable to gain independence and world recognition like many other colonies.

Even though Taiwanese people have built an independent and democratic country after half a century of hard work, now we enjoy freedom and human rights, the international community still isolates Taiwan. One of the main reasons is obviously China.

The established international community viewed China as a huge economic opportunity, a partner that would eventually carry out political reforms and be integrated into modern international order. Under this conventional thinking, the international community is willing to help China ease and suppress many of its unpleasant problems, including the thorny "Democratic Taiwan."

This has reduced Taiwan to merely China’s “Taiwan Problem”. We’re even slandered as the “troublemaker” of the Taiwan Strait; As a result, the respect that Taiwan deserves continues to be shelved, and the active role we can play, the contributions we can make in the international community are also ignored.

However, this established international structure is now changing.

After decades of appeasement policy, and acquiring WTO membership in 2001, China’s various structural changes that the world anticipated have never taken place. On the contrary, China’s been using organized measures, such as bribing, infiltration, and hybrid-warfare, to undermine international norms. It’s worked hard to manipulate and control international organizations, in order to project its influence onto the world. These actions have been even more distinct after Xi Jinping became President of China in 2012.

Internationally, China implemented debt-trap diplomacy on many countries through the Belt and Road Initiative. It established Confucius Institutes around the world, which are basically intelligence operations in the name of culture. Chinese tech giant, Huawei also aids China’s international surveillance. Not to mention China’s relentless expansion in the South China Sea, building military bases, creating man-made islands. This year, it’s even more serious. We witnessed the long time Chinese infiltration into UN organizations. The favoritism towards China helped its cover-up, which led to the dysfunction of WHO, ultimately causing the COVID-19 global pandemic.

Domestically, the Chinese government not only failed to implement any political reforms, but it also created the “Social Credit” system with advanced technology, to surveil and control its own people; In addition, the Chinese government built the notorious “Reeducation Camps” - concentration camps in reality, in Tibet, Xingjian, where human rights conditions were already in a bad shape. Even the Hong Kong people, who were supposed to be protected by the promise of “One Country, Two Systems”, their freedom and human rights were completely destroyed by the Chinese government.

These compelling examples show that there is some serious fallacy in the conventional way of viewing China. All facts point to this: Taiwan is not the problem. China is the problem. China is the troublemaker of the Taiwan Strait. It’s the troublemaker of the Indo-Pacific region. It’s even the troublemaker of the entire world.

Under decades of collective misjudgement, China was allowed to become the most terrifying, largest digital authoritarian government in human history. It’s a new form of dictatorship. As a response, many countries have vastly changed their China policy in recent years, thus the change of international structure.

This brings me to my next point: Give Taiwan the status it deserves. Let us contribute to the international society.

In a new international structure, Taiwan shouldn’t be categorized as “China’s Taiwan Problem”. Instead, we should be one of the key countries for international cooperation, responding to the new type of dictatorship.

Taiwan has faced authoritarian China on the front line for decades. Many countries are now facing the problem of China's infiltration under its United Front programs. Taiwan started dealing with the same problems 10 to 20 years ago. We have gained a lot of experience to contribute to the international community.

Taking the COVID pandemic as an example, Taiwan has studied and analyzed the actual situation and the information provided by the Chinese government with a serious and high-vigilance attitude. Based on our experience and lessons learned from the China SARS epidemic in 2001, we decisively formed a series of epidemic preventive measures. We have handled the crisis with the principle of openness and transparency. Our people have been self-disciplined and willing to cooperate. All of this demonstrates the high level of democracy in Taiwan’s society.

After the domestic epidemic was brought under control, Taiwan has continued to share our epidemic prevention supplies and the experiences on forming epidemic prevention policies with the world.

Although Taiwan was suppressed, even excluded by China in various international organizations in the past, we’ve been doing our best to comply with the norms & regulations of international organizations. We always actively contribute every time we have the opportunity. What I want to say is, all of this proves Taiwan could be a reliable partner in the international community. We are capable of working with other countries to solve major problems. We deserve our seats and participation in international organizations.

Regarding the impact of U.S. change of administration.

Now the U. S. presidential election is over and the administration is currently under transition. Many countries, including Taiwan, are concerned about whether the new U.S. government will change its course on foreign policy, especially its China policy. However, the "Rebalance (of Asia-Pacific Region)" proposed by the Obama administration in 2011, was in fact already a strategic adjustment in response to the rise of China and possible subsequent expansion.

The Trump administration further proposed the Indo-Pacific strategy in 2017 to promote and uphold international law and regulations, aiming to ensure every country has the liberty to be free from oppression and coercion. I believe that both parties in the U.S. understand the root cause of the Indo-Pacific regional problem comes from the Chinese government. Even for the Biden administration, it will have to provide practical responses. Facing the new structure, they can’t just go back to the traditional thinking of the last century.

As for Taiwan, the pro-Taiwan acts in the U.S., such as the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018, Taiwan Travel Act, Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement, were passed with strong consensus between the Republicans and the Democrats. I believe Taiwan could be a key partner to the international community and play an active role in the free world. This isn’t just the consensus of the two parties in the U.S., but will be the consensus of all democratic countries.

In a progressive aspect, the International community can benefit from a wider recognition of Taiwan.

In recent years, the performance of Taiwanese society in terms of epidemic prevention performance, human rights, gender equality, marriage equality, and open government are actually in line with many progressive ideas and visions. The ideas and visions that many democratic countries have long supported. Therefore, I’m quite optimistic that, after 2020, Taiwan can make even greater progress, on multiple levels and in broader aspects, contributing to the international community.

Finally, I want to emphasize again that to truly resolve regional problems, we need dynamic multilateral cooperation. But this must not be a return to the conventional thinking of the past century, which was "expecting" China to abide by the international order. The outdated thinking had been proved to be a failure. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a series of Chinese infiltration and aggression after its rise in recent years, which became one of the most difficult issues in the world. I believe after 2020, U.S., Japan, and Taiwan can establish a new model of international cooperation through deeper collaboration and communication. And hopefully, this model will maximize the security of the Indo-Pacific region and promote peace, stability and development in the region.

This concludes my speech, thank you all for listening.
Lastly, I’d like to express my gratitude to the moderators, my fellow panelists, and the organizers of this event.
I wish everyone peace and good health. Thank you.

同性婚が認められたニュージーランドの議会でウィリアムソン議員が行った大絶賛されたスピーチに日本語字幕をつけました。相手の不安をわかりやすい表現で取り除き感動の嵐を呼んだ伝説のスピーチです。性教育には人権教育も含まれます。自分と「違う」ことは決して恐れることではありませんね。


頑張って和訳してみましたけど、ちょっとヘンテコな表現があるかもしれないです。大目にみてくれーー！🙇‍♂️



英語全文

I've had a reverend in my local electorate say that the 'gay onslaught will start the day this bill is passed.'

So we are struggling to know what the gay onslaught will look like. We don't know if it will come down the Pakaranga highway as a series of troops or whether it will be a gas that flows the electorate and blocks us all in.

I also had a Catholic priest tell me that I was supporting an unnatural act.

I found that interesting coming from someone who has taken an oath of celibacy for his whole life. Celibacy... I haven't done it so I don't know what it's about.

I also had a leader tell me I would burn in the fires of hell for eternity and that was a bad mistake because I've got a degree in physics. I used the thermodynamic laws of physics.

I put in my body weight and my humidity and so on. I assumed the furnace to be at 5000 degrees and I will last for just on 2.1 seconds. It's hardly eternity. What do you think?

I also head some more disgusting claims about adoption. Well, I have got three fantastic adopted kids. I know how good adoption is, and I have found some of the claims just disgraceful.

I found some of the bullying tactics really evil. I gave up being scared of bullies when I was at primary school.

However, a huge amount of the opposition was from moderates, from people who were concerned, who were seriously worried, about what this bill might do to the fabric of our society.

I respect their concern. I respect their worry. They were worried about what it might do to their families and so on.

Let me repeat to them now that all we are doing with this bill is allowing two people who love each other to have that love recognised by way of marriage.

That is all we are doing. We are not declaring nuclear war on a foreign State. We are not bringing a virus in that could wipe out our agricultural sector forever.

We are allowing two people who love each other to have that recognised, and I cannot see what is wrong with that for neither love nor money.

I just cannot. I cannot understand why someone would be opposed. I understand why people do not like what it is that others do. That is fine. We are all in that category.
But

I give a promise to those people who are opposed to this bill right now. I give you a watertight guaranteed promise.
The sun will still rise tomorrow. Your teenage daughter will still argue back to you as if she knows everything.

Your mortgage will not grow. You will not have skin diseases or rashes or toads in your bed.

The world will just carry on.

So do not make this into a big deal.

This bill is fantastic for the people it affects, but for the rest of us, life will go on.

Finally, can I say that one of the messages I had was this bill was the cause of our drought.

Well, if any one you follow my Twitter account, you will see that in the Pakuranga electorate this morning, it was pouring with rain.

We had the most enormous big gay rainbow across my electorate. It has to be a sign. If you are a believer, it is certainly a sign.

Can I finish, for all those who are concerned about this, with a quote from the bible.

It is Deuteronomy. I thought Deuteronomy was a cat out of the musical 'Cats,' but never mind.

The quote is Deuteronomy 1:29.

'Be ye not afraid.'"

=======================================

チャンネル登録よろしくお願いします
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz09dV4Dn5BkoXzCryignDQ?sub_confirmation=1

=======================================
【SNS】

◆Instagram◆
https://www.instagram.com/mrgayjapanshogo/

◆Twitter◆
https://twitter.com/mrgayjapanshogo

Taiwan, beacon of Democracy in Asia and the world

Is a self-governing country without a seat in the UN

China views it as a renegade province

And threatens to annihilate it by force

Taiwan’s president Tsai Ing-wen responds with

More human rights,
More democracy
and More freedom

On February 20th 2019

Taiwan is to legislate same-sex marriage law

Here is Taiwan Premier Su’s message to its people:

Hello, My fellow Taiwanese folks

As we all know, human society evolves constantly. For the longest time, there were prejudice towards the poor, women, blacks. They couldn’t even vote. Now all is respected, all is equal.

We used to think sexual attraction happen to opposite sex. We didn’t understand homosexuals. Ignorance leads to fear. Fear leads to oppression. Even I was once ignorant as a kid.

Now it is medically proven. Homosexuals are born this way. It’s not a disease. It’s not contagious. You can’t nurture straights to gays, nor gays to straights.

Executive Yuan as the highest executive institution in Taiwan, we must act according to the law, we must respect the referendum results, we also must act according to the Grand Justice Interpretation of constitution court. Therefore, we will not amend the civil code law. The marriage between a man and a woman is intact as is.

As stated by the supreme court justice Interpretation No. 748, the union of same sex couples requires the equal protection of the freedom of marriage. Therefore, the Executive Yuan will enact on legislation of such law. Since many still debate on the naming of the law. We feel it is best not to muddle on the wording. Instead, the Executive Yuan will name it ‘J Y Interpretation No. 748 Enact Law’ and send it to legislature for review.

I hope all will understand that, according to the Grand Justice Interpretation, if the Executive doesn’t enact, if the Legislature doesn’t pass before May 24th, same-sex marriage will still be allowed to register under current Civil Code. Therefore, I ask the legislature to legislate soon.

I will also say this to my fellow Taiwanese: No matter you’re gay or straight, we are all on the same side, living together on this land, we are all here, between heaven and earth. I sincerely look forward to all, to tolerate the different, to kindly treat one another, and make Taiwan a country that respects and be kind to one another.

Thank you, and, good night.

Hello Youtube Fam,

Today’s Vlog:
When We Make Mistakes,
How Ironic,
When Emotions Take Over,
Excited For The Food Train,
Here Comes The Airplane!

Yesterday, I broke down in the middle of a restaurant to Tim (unintentionally) and confided I'm just feeling so worn out physically and mentally. My emotions has just been taking me everywhere lately and I realised as much as I tried to handle everything, I was falling apart defeated from exhaustion.

I didn't want to admit I was struggling. I felt guilty because I thought it's my job as a mum to be tough for her kids. I didn't want to admit defeat by announcing I need time myself. However, some days you realise you gotta really do something for yourself. Today, Tim made me go get a facial and it meant everything after being cooped in our little apartment for 2 weeks with our moody sick children. I think it was just a mixture of everything that was building up causing me to be extra emotional. Good news is, my insomnia is better and I am starting to sleep a little more day by day. The weather is also getting warmer too so happier kids mean happier parents. My cold is much better too. The rainbow is appearing again hehe.

There is nobody in this world I would rather have a tiff with than my husband. In venting out my frustration, it right good in the moment but my husband ended up paying for it. I could not be more sorry. I did not need to share our disagreements to the world. Sometimes, I don't realise that as open as I am as a person, my husband isn't. I also need to know the fine line between my youtube life and actual real life. Youtube has become a huge part of my life and I lean on you all so much but I learnt that I gotta respect people around me. I should've known better and now I do. Some stuff really should be between husband and wife. We're going to keep it that way again. I am also reading my book all over again to reinforce myself to control my emotions.

I apologise if my childish act disappointed some of you. I want you guys to know i am far from perfect and I am still learning everyday. It's okay to make mistakes. As long as we learn from them.

Love, the Bubz family xo



Subscribe to my Vlog channel for daily doses of HAPPINESS!
http://bit.ly/BubzVlogz

Subscribe to my Beauty Channel here:
http://bit.ly/BubzBeauty

Connect with me:
MY WEBSITE: http://www.bubzbeauty.com
TWITTER: http://www.twitter.com/bubzbeauty
INSTAGRAM: http://www.instagram.com/itsbubz
TIM'S INSTAGRAM: http://www.instagram.com/bubzhubz
FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/itsbubz
ADD ME ON SNAPCHAT: “THEREALBUBZ”
BUY MY EYESHADOW PALETTE HERE: http://bit.ly/BUBZpalette
BUY MY BOOK available in Barnes & Noble (they ship internationally): http://bit.ly/2nnSYtU
E-BOOK VERSION available on Amazon: http://bit.ly/BubzEguide