這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。(加拿大法院鏈接在此:https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8)
這位法王的桃色事件,我是幾年前才聽到。但,藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞,我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過,也有一些活佛跟她表白。(這不只是她,其他地方我也聽過不少)
這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。
很多時候發生這種事情,信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇,或者說她們也精神病,或者說她們撒謊。
我不排除有這種可能性,但,多過一位,甚至多位出來指證的時候,我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。
大寶法王的桃色事件,最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒,第二位是香港的女出家人,現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。
對大寶法王信徒來說,這一次的比較麻煩,因為是有孩子的。(關於有孩子的,我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時,就有聽聞)
如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA,這對法王和他的信徒來說,會很尷尬和矛盾,因為做或不做,都死。
你若問我,我覺得『人數是有力量的』,同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來,是不出奇的。
我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒,如果你們真的愛佛教,先別說批判,但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議,你是間接害了佛教。
(下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容,當中有很多細節。)
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
F. Delay / Prejudice
CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).
[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.
[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.
[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.
[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.
BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.
[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.
[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.
[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.
[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.
[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.
[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.
[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.
[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.
[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.
[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.
[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.
[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:
a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;
b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;
c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;
d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.
[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.
[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.
[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.
[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:
I will definitely find a way to meet her
And you
Remember to take care of yourself if something happens
[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.
[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.
[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.
[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.
[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.
[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:
3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person
(a) is married to another person, or
(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and
(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or
(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.
[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).
[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.
[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.
[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.
[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.
[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.
[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.
[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.
[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.
[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.
[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.
[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:
[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.
[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:
1. Shelter:
(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?
(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?
(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?
2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:
(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?
(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?
(c) What were their feelings toward each other?
(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?
(e) Did they eat their meals together?
(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?
(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?
3. Services:
What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:
(a) preparation of meals;
(b) washing and mending clothes;
(c) shopping;
(d) household maintenance; and
(e) any other domestic services?
4. Social:
(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?
(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?
5. Societal:
What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?
6. Support (economic):
(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?
(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?
(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?
7. Children:
What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?
[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).
[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:
[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.
[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.
[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.
[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:
[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.
[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:
a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.
b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.
c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.
d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.
e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.
f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.
g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.
[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.
[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.
[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.
[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).
[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.
[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.
[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.
[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.
[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.
[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.
[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.
[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:
[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.
[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.
[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.
[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:
[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.
[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:
[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …
[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.
[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.
F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.
[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.
[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.
[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.
[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.
[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.
[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.
[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.
[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.
CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.
[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.
[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.
“Master Elwood”
同時也有11部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過15萬的網紅ロイドごはん,也在其Youtube影片中提到,横浜、二郎系の一杯!神奈川県横浜市『ハイパーファットン』にお邪魔しました。こちらはかつて「ファットン」として営業されていたお店で、その味わいはファンから熱く支持されています。お店のTwitterを拝見すると「J系でもG系でも家系でもない唯一無二のF系」という熱い言葉が目に飛び込んできます。今回が初め...
「j words list」的推薦目錄:
- 關於j words list 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於j words list 在 Meuko Meuko Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於j words list 在 Meuko Meuko Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於j words list 在 ロイドごはん Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於j words list 在 SLSMusic Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於j words list 在 Roboco Ch. - ロボ子 Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於j words list 在 Pin on Words - Pinterest 的評價
- 關於j words list 在 Learn Words Starting With Letter J - Kids Entry 的評價
- 關於j words list 在 English Vocabulary - 'J' WORDS - YouTube 的評價
j words list 在 Meuko Meuko Facebook 的精選貼文
今年參與的Busan Biennale #釜山雙年展 2020 :《Words at an Exhibition - an exhibition in ten chapters and five poems》陸續推出了Audio Book以及黑膠唱片。
展覽內容的Soundscape 聲音/音樂創作者們其中還有來自美國的Sonic Youth貝斯手/後龐克教母Kim Gordon、日本的聲音藝術家食品まつりa.k.aFOODMAN、丹麥實驗電子音樂家Astrid Sonne,以及韓國當地的聲音創作者、釜山市民提供的聲音素材等等,有興趣收藏的朋友們請至官網洽詢。
🔍 http://www.busanbiennale.org/eng
-
《線上收聽》
#BusanBiennale 부산비엔날레 2020
Soundscapes compilation now on Soundcloud:https://soundcloud.com/user-138098621/sets/bb2020-soundscapes-1
《 BusanBiennale 부산비엔날레 Soundscapes List 》:
SA 1. 오대리(ODÆRI) - 뜬구름(Boowoon) Cloud Drift
SA 2. 세이수미 (SAY SUE ME) - 매일 산책 연습 (Daily Walking Rehearsals)
SA 3. 김일두 (KIM Ildu), 오션 뷰 - 오래된 기차(Ocean View - Old Train)
SA 4. 김일두 (KIM Ildu), 고니 - 극동의 3리터(Tundra Swan - 3 Liters Of Far East)
SA 5. 김일두 (KIM Ildu), 자갈치 하늘 - 더 가까이 (Jagalchi Sky - Closer)
SA 6. 김일두 (KIM Ildu), 해운대 텍사스 퀸콩 - 그 밤 그 길(Haeundae Texas Queen Kong - That Night That Road
SA 7. 김일두 (KIM Ildu), 피난 - 뜨거운 불 (Refuge - Hot Fire)
SA 8. 최태현 (CHOI Taehyun), 묘박지 (Anchorage)
SA 9. 엘리아스 벤더 로넨펠트 (Elias Bender RØNNENFELT), 초록은 미안하다 (Green Is For Sorry)
SA 10. 제이통과 진자(J - TONG And JINJAH), 얄리얄리얄라셩 (Yaliyaliyalashung)
SA 11. 쇠렌 키에르가르드 (Søren Kjaergaard), 말하려는 듯 (As If To Say)
SA 12. 아스트리드 존느 (Astrid SONNE),기억의 영역들( Various Areas Of Memory) - 부산 로즈( Busan En Rose)
SA 13. 푸드맨 (食品まつり A.k.a Foodman), 대화 (KAIWA)
SA 14. 무코! 무코! (Meuko! Meuko!), 결국엔 우리 모두 호수에 던져진 돌이 되리라 (We’ll All End Up Rocks In A Lake)
SA 15. 킴 고든 (KIM Gordon), 그저께 (the Day Before Yesterday)
-
An Ambient soundtrack in collaboration with a Colombian writer Andrés Felipe Solano: 《We’ll All End Up Rocks in a Lake》at this year's Busan Biennale. And Thanks to Busan citizens contribute their city sounds .
《Online Exhibition》: http://www.busanbiennale.org/eng/index.php?pCode=MN2000212
05.09.2020 - 08.11.2020
《열 장의 이야기와 다섯 편의 시》 (Words at an Exhibition - an exhibition in ten chapters and five poems
Venue : Museum of Contemporary Art Busan, Old Town, Yeongdo Harbor, South Korea
Curated by #JacobFabricius
再次感謝丹麥籍策展人Jacob Fabricius的邀請。
j words list 在 Meuko Meuko Facebook 的最佳解答
今年參與的 #釜山雙年展 十一位聲音創作者之中音景配樂製作,現在數位合輯在Soundcloud上也聽得到了:https://soundcloud.com/user-138098621/sets/bb2020-soundscapes-1
這次的音景Soundscapes製作是與作家/影像藝術家們的跨域合作。我所配合的是哥倫比亞作家Andrés Felipe Solano
《BusanBiennale 부산비엔날레 Soundscapes List》:
• SA 1. 오대리(ODÆRI) - 뜬구름(Boowoon) Cloud Drift
• SA 2. 세이수미 (SAY SUE ME) - 매일 산책 연습 (Daily Walking Rehearsals)
• SA 3. 김일두 (KIM Ildu), 오션 뷰 - 오래된 기차(Ocean View - Old Train)
• SA 4. 김일두 (KIM Ildu), 고니 - 극동의 3리터(Tundra Swan - 3 Liters Of Far East)
• SA 5. 김일두 (KIM Ildu), 자갈치 하늘 - 더 가까이 (Jagalchi Sky - Closer)
• SA 6. 김일두 (KIM Ildu), 해운대 텍사스 퀸콩 - 그 밤 그 길(Haeundae Texas Queen Kong - That Night That Road
• SA 7. 김일두 (KIM Ildu), 피난 - 뜨거운 불 (Refuge - Hot Fire)
• SA 8. 최태현 (CHOI Taehyun), 묘박지 (Anchorage)
• SA 9. 엘리아스 벤더 로넨펠트 (Elias Bender RØNNENFELT), 초록은 미안하다 (Green Is For Sorry)
• SA 10. 제이통과 진자(J - TONG And JINJAH), 얄리얄리얄라셩 (Yaliyaliyalashung)
• SA 11. 쇠렌 키에르가르드 (Søren Kjaergaard), 말하려는 듯 (As If To Say)
• SA 12. 아스트리드 존느 (Astrid SONNE),기억의 영역들( Various Areas Of Memory) - 부산 로즈( Busan En Rose)
• SA 13. 푸드맨 (食品まつり A.k.a Foodman), 대화 (KAIWA)
• SA 14. 무코! 무코! (Meuko! Meuko!), 결국엔 우리 모두 호수에 던져진 돌이 되리라 (We’ll All End Up Rocks In A Lake)
• SA 15. 킴 고든 (KIM Gordon), 그저께 (the Day Before Yesterday)
-
An Ambient soundtrack in collaboration with a Colombian writer Andrés Felipe Solano:
《 Online Exhibition》: http://www.busanbiennale.org/eng/index.php?pCode=MN2000212
05.09.2020 - 08.11.2020
《열 장의 이야기와 다섯 편의 시》 (Words at an Exhibition - an exhibition in ten chapters and five poems)
Curated by Jacob Fabricius
Venue : Museum of Contemporary Art Busan, Old Town, Yeongdo Harbor, South Korea
#BusanBiennale #부산비엔날레 2020
j words list 在 ロイドごはん Youtube 的最佳解答
横浜、二郎系の一杯!神奈川県横浜市『ハイパーファットン』にお邪魔しました。こちらはかつて「ファットン」として営業されていたお店で、その味わいはファンから熱く支持されています。お店のTwitterを拝見すると「J系でもG系でも家系でもない唯一無二のF系」という熱い言葉が目に飛び込んできます。今回が初めての訪問、楽しみに伺ってきましたので早速ご覧ください!
*感染対策を徹底して撮影を行っています。
*撮影に際しては、お店の方や周りのお客様に充分配慮して撮影をおこなっています。
Yokohama, Jiro-tipe cup! I visited "Hyper Fatton" in Yokohama City, Kanagawa Prefecture. This is a shop that was once operated as "Fatton", and its taste is enthusiastically supported by fans. When you look at the shop's Twitter, you can see the hot words "the one and only F system that is neither ramen Jiro nor Gattsuri nor iekei ". This is my first visit, and I'm looking forward to it, so please have a look!
* We take thorough measures against infection.
* When shooting, we give due consideration to the shop and customers around us.
いつもありがとうございます!( ´ ▽ ` )
高評価&チャンネル登録もよろしくお願いいたします!
#ラーメン #二郎系 #ロイドごはん #パイパーファットン #大食い
—————《サブチャンネルもよろしくお願いします!》—————————————
【メロンシートジャーニー】
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNlBAUziFWkJZFY_u3t65A
【フラメンコロイド】
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsFJHNg3SR41R2a3vctUInw
🍀「ロイドごはん」公式LINEができました!
お友だち追加はこちら
https://lin.ee/ow4OdaV
—————《本日の店舗情報》—————————————————
『ハイパーファットン』
https://www.google.co.jp/amp/s/s.tabelog.com/kanagawa/A1401/A140206/14068605/top_amp/
—————《ロイドおすすめ動画はこちら》———————————
78才おじいちゃん屋台ラーメンの朝『幸っちゃん』夜明けの銀座【飯テロ】Old Style Ramen Stall Yatai Japanese Street Food
https://youtu.be/YHiWYvhxUI4
【家系ラーメン特集!】
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6yW17uB9uIVUmOS8qnXrRwcBu8W-uRYZ
【大食い】焼肉が史上最強すぎてライス特大2週続けて行ってみた!【ホルモン焼 味楽来】飯テロ
https://youtu.be/JB7Fd1099hg
—————《twitter》—————————————————————
★ロイドごはん
https://twitter.com/roidgohan
★メロンシート
https://twitter.com/meloncito310
★フラメンコロイド
https://twitter.com/flamenkoroid
—————《instagram》———————————————————-
★ロイドごはん
https://www.instagram.com/roidgohan
★メロンシート
https://www.instagram.com/satoshimelo...
★フラメンコロイド
https://www.instagram.com/flamenkoroid
—————《各サイトの情報》—————————————————
★ロイドwalker《人生をドラマチックに彩る旅とグルメと温泉図鑑》
https://ramenjapan.net/
★メロンシート《フラメンコギターの世界一の旅》
https://pordiotama3.xsrv.jp
★フラメンコロイド 《フラメンコロイドの神話と伝説》
https://flamenkoroid.net
j words list 在 SLSMusic Youtube 的精選貼文
I played TOP 5 Favorite Songs of Aimer on piano as a ONE-TAKE medley. The songs were voted by YOU last weekend on YouTube Community post, I picked the comments that got the highest likes. Do you agree with this TOP5?
🔔New Video and Live Every Week, Please SUBSCRIBE and turn the bell on :1
💎Join Membership to support SLSMusic
► http://www.youtube.com/slsmusic/join
📖Sheet Music Store
🎼https://www.gumroad.com/slsmusic
🎼https://www.mymusicsheet.com/slsmusic
VOTE POST:
https://www.youtube.com/post/Ugz6Pxe7pts8upOjpe94AaABCQ
SONG LIST:
0:00 BONUS!! April Showers
0:33 カタオモイKataomoi
2:16 茜さすAkane Sasu
3:50 星屑ビーナス Hoshikazu Venus
4:47 Ref:rain
6:44 ポラリスPolaris
9:03 BONUS!! words
🎧Find SLSMusic on Spotify, iTunes, Apple Music, Amazon, Deezer and more
► https://li.sten.to/slsmusic
🎧Streaming Platforms
🎹Spotify ► http://bit.ly/SLSMusicSpotify
🎻iTunes ► http://bit.ly/SLSiTunes
✅SLSMusic LINE Stickers ► https://line.me/S/sticker/7239025
🎧Playlists
Official Playlists 🎥
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqY5-xxyprjtckllGMQK4XljIu_5csx3z
Aimer on Piano 🎹
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqY5-xxyprjvy3inC9_xQsPrZcS7QX5b_
🎤Social Media
Website ➡ https://www.slsmusic.net
Instagram ➡ https://www.instagram.com/slsmusictw
Twitter ➡ https://twitter.com/slsmusictw
Facebook ➡ https://www.facebook.com/slsmusictt
🥁DONATION
PayPal ► https://www.paypal.me/SLSMusic
歐付寶 ► https://www.bit.ly/DonateSLS
🔧Equipment
●Piano / NORD PIANO 3
●Speakers / ADAM A7X
●Audio Interface / Yamaha AG06
●Camera / Panasonic GH5
●Studio Desk / Wavebone HEADQUARTER
■──────────────────■
#Aimer #Piano #Medley
j words list 在 Roboco Ch. - ロボ子 Youtube 的最讚貼文
#ロボ子生放送 #APEX #ホロライブ
一言『英語も喋れるもんね!』
Twitterでは『 #romoon』でついーとしてね[pq*´꒳`*]
本ゲームは © 2020 Electronic Arts Inc. の承諾を得た上で配信・収益化を行なっております
■ムーナ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UATFpGdBKYY
【APEX 設定】
ゲーム内感度: 4.8/DPI: 2500/視野角: 110
鯖は内緒です。しーーーゴーステイングはだめです!
コラボの際はスパチャ、メンバーさんは次のソロ配信で呼ぶね、ありがと~!
🎉ボクのうさ耳パーカーがKADOKAWAさんにて販売決定✨
普段使いもしやすいように兎耳がチャックで取り外しも可能!
5月24日までの限定受注販売なので要チェックだよ!
#高性能パーカー でツイッターもチェック✨
・ピンク➡https://ebten.jp/p/4541993047567
・ブラック➡https://ebten.jp/p/4541993047574
ボクの誕生日のプレゼントはホロで5/8~5/15まで受付中だよ[ ☌ω☌]ジィー♥
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
■■注意■■
配信をよくするために協力お願いします!
①不適切な表現、公序良俗に反する言葉等の使用はダメだよ。
また、海外圏の方が困っている場合はわかる方のみ対応して頂けると幸いです。
間違っても困ってる人を茶化すような行為はやめてください。
②伝書鳩行為(○○さんから来た!今○○さんが○○してるよ!)
等は、嫌う人が多数いるので控えましょう。
他者の配信でも「ロボ子から~」等もやめてください
③コラボ中はわからない人もいるから身内ネタを控えて下さい!
なるべく決め事や縛りは作らないで楽しい放送にしたいのでみんなよろしくね[*´σー`]エヘヘ
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
🌸ロボ子さん、メンバーシップ始まったよ!!
【特典】
・専用スタンプ解禁✨名前の横にメンバーバッチ付与👀✨
・コミュ二ティに壁紙配布/限定配信があるYO!
みんなの加入お待ちしております!一緒に配信盛り上げようね!
★登録はコチラ→ https://t.co/hcjxHtMqOy?amp=1
★限定アーカイブリスト→ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF54qiUa9cTuOKngczTOAniEU0QbVge5h
★メンバー登録のやり方が分からない人向け↓
https://vandle.jp/hello/usage-youtube-member/
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
⚡Twitter⚡
https://twitter.com/robocosan
⚡Youtube⚡
https://t.co/9Tw5lajPeC?amp=1
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
■■Notice■■
Please cooperate to improve the quality of the stream !
①Inappropriate statements, the use of words that against public's morale are not allowed
And when there are overseas viewers who are in trouble, please let those who understand them respond.
Even if you don't mean it, please don't do irresponsible things and distrub others.
②The act of carrier pigeon(I come from ○○!Now ○○ is doing ○○! etc)
There's a lot of people who dislike those act so refrain from doing so。
Even on other people's stream, don't say something like 「I come from roboco~」
③During collaboration, There might be those who don't know the inside jokes, so please refrain from doing it
I tried not to make many rules and restrictions and want to have a fun stream, I'm counting on you guys[*´σー`]エヘヘ
At twitter #ロボ子生放送 (roboco live stream), I will be happy if you leave a tweet here✨
We are looking for people who can help us create subtitles!
Any language is welcome ♥ Thank you for your cooperation~~
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
📌ボイス販売中📌
ボイス販売第1弾、第2弾、2周年記念と続々販売中🎉
YOUTUBEだとできない耳舐めASMR等も入っています💓
【🔔購入場所🔔】
・第一弾→https://hololive.booth.pm/items/1181674
・第二弾→https://hololive.booth.pm/items/1486067
・2周年記念ボイス→ https://hololive.booth.pm/items/1893402
※海外の方は上記の文章リンクからアクセスできます!
※For overseas users, please click the link above!
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
📌公式グッズ販売中📌
(Tシャツ/グラス/タンブラー/マグカップ/スマホカバー/アクキー)
・公式BOOTHにて購入できます!
→ https://hololive.booth.pm/items/1168247
・合同CDアルバム
【IMAGINATION vol.1】
→ https://rkmusic.jp/release/IMAGINATION_vol1.html
【バーチャル開花最前線!/Fragment】
→http://anthurium.tokyo/atcv001/
ボイス等の感想は Twitterで #聴いたよロボ子さん で待ってます♡
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
🌸スーパーチャットについて🌸
いつも応援本当にありがとうございます!
活動の励みになります!
見守ってくれると嬉しいな[╹ω╹]n
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
📌FORTNITEクリエイターサポート📌
・フォトナやってる方はぜひ、サポートお願いします!
・2週間ごとに切れてしまうので更新お願いします。
【コード:ROBOCOSAN】
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
🎁ロボ子さん誕生日のプレゼント受付期間(5/8~5/15まで)
💌お手紙や🎁プレゼントはこちらまで✨
173-0003
東京都板橋区加賀1丁目6番1号 ネットデポ新板橋
カバー株式会社 ホロライブ プレゼント係分 ロボ子さん宛
▼プレゼント詳細▼
https://www.hololive.tv/contact
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
BGM:魂音泉(本人許可いただきました!感謝!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2aadeZ6f8hpymlYiLuY99A
j words list 在 Pin on Words - Pinterest 的推薦與評價
Words that Start with J | List of 200+ Common J Words in English - ESL Forums ... Words with Q | A Big List of 300+ Words That Start with Q - ESL Forums. ... <看更多>