Question 1

one more thing email林薇Vivi 在Facebook 的評價

Accepted Answer

想跟大家分享一個好消息，​我獲得了2021的 #黛安娜人道主義獎 The Diana Award。​*English version below*​​獲得這個獎，是興奮，是感動，更是意志堅定的。​而它的意義，是肯定，是責任，更代表從今而後，持續無懼，溫柔而無畏。​/​​我記得收到獲獎email的那天，手機掉落在了桌面，我用雙手摀住了臉，一句話也說不出。當下發抖的我，深吸了氣嘗試和緩情緒，卻又激動的忘記了吐出。那不僅僅是因為不可置信，因為驚喜也驚嚇，更多的，是喜極而泣的感動，是無法言喻的撼動。我知道，這是一個對於從事人道救援與社會關懷的青年，莫大的殊榮，超乎言喻的肯定，但我也知道，那當下的激動，其實都不是因為我得獎，而是因為，在這個獎中，我感受到，我們的努力與相信，真的真的被看見、被支持了，衷心感謝提名人與評審團的肯定。​​即使很多時候，我們會因為人們的不重視，而感到灰心；會因為人們的不願信任，而感到憤怒；更會因為人們的漫不在乎，而覺得自己好像真的很傻很天真。但在這天，好傻好傻，傻到真心、全心相信，並且用盡全力在小紅帽推動著月經平權，推動著人們都不應再因為任何認同、或與身俱來的差異或特性，而受到任何不友善待遇理念的我們，是真的真的被世界聽見了。也在今天，踏出了一個前進路上的里程碑，一個讓我們可以更堅定地喊出，「我們不會放棄，會持續努力，會一直走到這個世界不再需要小紅帽的那天」，這樣一個珍貴而美好的時刻。​​關注月經議題，踏上推動平權的這條路，於我而言，是一輩子不做，會感到力不從心，會日日覺得不舒服，覺得無法入眠的事。這背後的原因，其實只是因為，我打從心裡相信，這世界上的每一個人，都是重要的，都應該有權利真實，也都值得被自己與他人好好對待。我也深知，要走向一切成真的那天，必須得要有更多的人，一起用自己舒適的步調與方式，從生活當中，開始改變。因此，我希望自己可以參與在這些改變之中，看見與感受改變的發生，但我更希望，自己可以不只是少數人中的一個，而是多數共識中，同樣在努力的其中一人。所以我開始了行動，踏上了倡議之路，也持續期待與呼籲，更多的人，一起成為改變的力量——因為每一個你，真的都同等重要，也都不可或缺。​​獲得這個獎，於我而言，除了感謝，還有提醒與責任。​我知道，這將是我們在推動平權、消弭貧窮、嘗試讓世界可以真的一步一步邁向那更理想的樣子的這條路上，一個好難忘且意義重大的記憶。但更重要的，是從這天起，從獎項成為過去的這天起，我們更清楚地了解到，自己為什麼而做，自己想往哪走，走到哪裡。而這份肯定，也提醒著我們，接下來的路，我們將要持續無懼無畏、溫柔且堅定的走下去，無論沿途將有多少難關、挑戰、失意與磨難。​​這個殊榮，更提醒了我們除了在過去，也要在接下來的每一天，滿懷感謝。​因為無論是持續相挺的夥伴們、給予我們高度信任的個案們、亦或是所有身在世界各地，選擇與我們並肩、支持我們的每一個人，都不是偶然、不是應該，更不只是幸運。我們將會持續做好手邊每一件我們所及、可以做好的小事，讓你我希望能一起看見的明天，真的有機會能發生。而我相信，這也是我與團隊最能夠表達感謝的方式，更是我們從零走到一，都不曾忘記，也不曾放棄的態度與堅持。​​我也想藉這個機會，謝謝所有從 小紅帽Little Red Hood 成立至今，曾經或現在仍在關注、分享我們的行動與內容產出的你；謝謝透過各種方式，支持著鼓勵著我們的你；也謝謝曾經提供我們建議、回饋、甚至是挑戰的你；更謝謝，總是與我們並肩，總是做我們最強後盾的前輩、夥伴、讀者、捐款人們，因為有你們，自始與我們一起走在這條崎嶇蜿蜒的道路上，我們才能走得如此無懼、享受、更踏實而無後顧之憂。​​感謝這片滋養我的土地，我的家，臺灣。​作為第一位獲獎的臺灣人，我想說，能在填寫獲獎資料時，堅定且自信地與執行團隊溝通，表達我希望能在國家名單上加上臺灣的訴求，並在後來真的看見名單上加上了臺灣，是一件讓我深感驕傲與感動的事。因為是這片土地民主自由的風氣，熱情、樸實而真切勤奮的人們，讓我深信，發聲可以是如此自然的事情，而愛，也可以如此簡單卻富有力量。是這片土地孕育了我，而我希望只要有任何一丁點的機會，我都可以盡全力，讓臺灣的美與善，被更多人看見。​​謝謝我的家人，還有每一個提點我、叮嚀我、支持我、鼓勵我、擁抱我的摯友們。是你們，讓我相信，自己可以是一個有力量的人，也有機會能將這樣的力量分享出去，讓更多的人，同樣相信，其實我們每一個人的存在與真實，本來就足夠美好。​​我們生而不同，但正因為這些差異，而使我們各個獨特且重要。​願終有一天，人們不再因為生來的特質與認同，而受到限制與感到困擾，也願你我都能成為生活裡的光，相信著自己，更溫暖著別人。​​我們是真的可以，讓這個世界，有機會變得更好一點點。​​林薇 2021.07.21​​---​​I have got some great news I would like to share with you all. ​I am both humbled and honoured to be recognised as the Diana Award Recipient 2021 – one of the highest accolades a young person can achieve for social action and humanitarian efforts. ​​Winning this award was exciting, inspiring, and made me more determined than ever. On the other hand, the acknowledgement also meant the responsibility to continue the journey with fearlessness, gentleness, tenacity, and strength.​​When I received the email notifying me of winning the award, I instantly dropped my phone onto the table and covered my face with disbelief. My body was shaking. I took a deep breath to gather myself but was too excited to even remember to exhale. My emotions, however, were more than astonishment. There was immense happiness accompanied by tears of joy. I knew, for a youth striving to devote myself to providing humanitarian aid and care to society, this award was an acknowledgement beyond my imagination. The emotions which overwhelmed me was not for myself to win this award, I knew, it was that our (Little Red Hood Team) hard work and beliefs were recognised and supported! I sincerely thank the judging panel and the nominator for their appreciation. ​​This journey has not been easy. We have experienced frustrating times and moments that almost made up give up. But now, receiving this award meant that we are finally being heard by the world for our belief to strive for not only menstrual equity, but that people should not be mistreated for being who they truly are. ​​Today marks a precious milestone in the journey ahead, where we can shout with conviction that, “We will never give up! We will continue to work hard! We will work towards the day that the Little Red Hood is no longer needed!” ​ ​​Personally, menstrual-related issues and advocacy for equality were something that I could not ignore and keeps me up at night if nothing were being done about them. I believe that everyone in the world deserves to be themselves and treated equally. However, I knew, to achieve this goal, more people will have to change with pace and manner comfortable to each their own. I hope to be part of these changes, to see and feel the differences, moreover, I wish that more and more people could join this movement. Therefore, I began my path of advocacy and hereby encourage anyone who sees any worth in the issues I proposed, to be the difference and become a driving force for changes- because you are all equally crucial for the realisation of the future we strive for. ​​Today will live on as a significant memory full of gratitude, reminder, and responsibility. More importantly, this award gave us a clearer picture of why we work and where we want to work towards. It also prompts us to strive without fear, to be gentle but firm in the faces of challenges, difficulties, failures that are bound to come. This honour reminded us to live every day with gratitude because the friends, partners and beneficiaries around the world chose to believe and fight alongside us. Their supports were not mandatory, nor by chance, and not just luck.​​We will continue our work to the best of our ability and hopefully, make the differences needed for the future we all wished for. This, I think, is the best way that my team and I could show our appreciation and stay true to our roots. ​​I would like to take this opportunity to thank those of you who followed Little Red Hood from day one and shared our content or actions; thank you for all the different forms of support you have shown. I want to further thank those who provided us with suggestions, feedback or even challenges; you fought alongside of us as predecessors, partners, readers, and doners. You gave us confidence, joy, and the ability to traverse this rugged path without worry. ​​I would also like to thank Taiwan, the land and home, which nurtured me with everything I needed. As the first Taiwanese recipient of the award, I confidently expressed my wish of adding Taiwan to the country list for the award. Thanks to the award development team, Taiwan was proudly added onto the list. It was the democracy and freedom of our land with the passionate, honest, and hard-working people that led me to truly believe speaking our mind was such a natural thing to do. Love is simple yet powerful. My country nurtured me to who I am today, and I would like to let more people see the beauty and the goodness of Taiwan, even if it were only a small portion. ​​I want to thank my friends and family, who provided me with advice, support, and encouragement. You allowed me to believe that I, myself, could become a strong person and that I could spread this belief and show everyone that simply being ourselves is good enough.​​We were all born differently, which is precisely why everybody is unique and important. One day, I really hope, people would no longer be restricted and affected by their inherent traits, identities, and beliefs, and that you and I could become the light in our lives and spread the warmth to others. ​​Together, we can make the world a better place. ​​Vivi Lin 21 July 2021#2021DianaAwards

Question 2

one more thing emailEric's English Lounge 在Facebook 的評價

Accepted Answer

因為一篇文章，受邀對兩位美國大使簡報Presentality英文寫作分析:前總統府英文演講撰稿人Andrew Yang在華府智庫工作時，因為寫了一篇文章，受邀對兩位大使演講。當時，他只是個22歲大學剛畢業的實習生。文章到底哪裡好？其實他那時也不太理解。多年後的今天，他把文章的最初稿貼出來，分析他覺得為何會得到美國政策圈的專注:★★★★★★★★★★★★Dear Mr. Yang,Your PacNet piece is the best thing I’ve read. Would you be interested in coming to New York to brief us on the topic?★★★★★★★★★★★★📌 這是我在華府戰略暨國際研究中心 (CSIS) 任職的時候，收到的一封 email。寄件人我早已經久仰大名，曾任美國駐中國大使。他跟另一位前大使正要前往中國，希望出發前邀請我到紐約跟他們簡報。但我收到那封信，非常困惑。因為那時的我，才22歲。我剛大學畢業不久，在智庫也還只是個實習生。兩位德高望重的大使，為何會想要把我飛到紐約去跟他們簡報？★★★★★★★★★★★★他們 email 裡說是因為看到我寫的文章：“PacNet piece”。那是我生平第一次寫政策分析評論，是某個週末心血來潮寫的。寫完之後發給我老闆 (也是一位知名的中國專家)，他居然直接打我手機 (never happened before) 然後問：「這是你寫的？真的是你自己寫的？沒有其他人幫你？是你寫的？」我跟他保證我沒有抄襲之後，他就把我的文做了一些修改，然後刊登到CSIS旗下太平洋論壇 (Pacific Forum) 的刊物 PacNet。隔週，華府的兩岸政策專家居然開始討論這篇文，然後文章又被其他國際媒體轉載。然後我就接到這兩位大使的邀約。我一路都很困惑。★★★★★★★★★★★★📌 文章… 到底好在哪裡？老實說… 我那時真的不知道。在文章刊登前，我就只是會議室角落的那個實習生，默默地聽那些地位崇高的專家演講。刊登後，聽到那些專家討論我寫的東西 (但不知道是角落的這個小孩寫的)，我還是不知道到底戳到了什麼點。後來我就遺忘了它。17年之後的今天 (哎呀，透露自己年紀了) 回去看，我才看出一點點頭緒。 有三個點，值得跟各位分享，希望對你的英文寫作有幫助。最重要的點，我放在最後，所以你也可以直接跳到後面看。一點背景：這篇文章的主題是台灣跟美國政府的溝通。2004年寫的時候，陳水扁面臨選舉壓力，推公投，讓美國很不爽。台灣官方很多團來美國跟 CSIS 等智庫見面 (畢竟不能直接見美國政府)，但溝通效果不佳。我這篇文章就是討論溝通為何沒有成果。★★★★★★★★★★★★📌 1. 寫的很假掰，有時也有用處我回去看的第一個感想就是：我的媽呀，怎麼這麼假掰！？用一大堆很長的字跟句子，既班門弄斧，又超級難唸…你看看這段：Yet officials and experts from Taiwan have been unwilling to tread into the domestic political dimensions of the referendum, and instead steadfastly insist that it is necessitated by international conditions.這是什麼鬼東西？“tread into the domestic political dimensions of the referendum”？ “Necessitated by international conditions”? “Steadfastly insist”? 反正就是把一堆音節很多的字，串成很多很長的句子就對了。所以，寫的不好對不對？其實也不一定。評估文筆的好壞，沒有一定的標準，就看你的讀者喜歡哪種口吻。Is your writing good or bad? It’s your readers who decide.那個時候的我，是一位22歲的實習生，面對的是美國政策圈的專家們，其中很多是研究所的教授，用字遣詞都很「知識份子」(不像我公司今天的客戶，都是只說接地氣白話文的創業家)。所以：•我沒有寫 “low point”，而是寫 “nadir”•不是寫 “toned down enough”，而是 “sufficiently moderated”•不寫 “fits with”，而是 “accords with”我看了都很想打我自己。可是… 就因為我的用字像一位政策分析 (或學術) 的人會寫的，才會讓對方覺得「這個是自己人」。反而是我的老闆會精神錯亂，因為這文筆跟他辦公室外面的那個小毛頭，反差太大。所以有時候，用很複雜的專業字眼，是一種「建立可信度」的方式。反而在你變成你的領域的佼佼者之後，就可以大剌剌的用白話文，因為沒有人會質疑你的可信度。★★★★★★★★★★★★📌  2. 專業之餘，還是要玩點文字遊戲專業歸專業，偶爾還是要來點文字遊戲，讓讀者「喔」一下，不然一直用 “policy speak” (政策的語言，無聊但是精準)，沒人想要看下去。這裡就是一段「文字遊戲」：Taiwan believes that yelling is the only recourse when its hands are tied, and that the referendum is a rather loud amplifier.我還記得當時這樣寫的目的，就是要給讀者畫面：把台灣想成一個人，雙手被綁住，就只能大叫，公投就被我比喻成擴音器。下一段，我就繼續用「樂器」的比喻：But the way Taiwan has been voicing its opinions is flawed, and repeatedly beating this broken old drum for weeks to American ears has clearly proved counterproductive.我還記得一位同事看到這段的時候，抬頭對我說：「我還不知道你滿會寫的耶」。這就是我要看到的效果。*不過為何要從「擴音器」變成「鼓」？我也不知道。總之，在你的文中撒一些好玩的效果，有助於讓讀者繼續看。★★★★★★★★★★★★📌 3. 但遠比文筆還重要的，是寫到人家心坎裡即使我的文筆再好，它還是不是關鍵。畢竟華府每天有那麼多文章刊出，很多人文筆比我還要好，為何是我的這篇得到關注？我現在回去分析，認為是我有「寫到美國人讀者的心坎裡」。要了解這個點，必須回溯一下背景。我那時是實習生嘛 (不過文章刊登時突然被晉升為研究助理)，工作就是安排大大小小的會議，其中很多是台灣的官員跟專家帶團來美國，幾乎都會來 CSIS 因為是主要智庫之一。在一次次的會議中，我看台灣方很用力的解釋，但美方卻越來越不耐煩。然後下一個訪團光臨，也說同樣的話，然後美方就更不耐煩。我恍然大悟，看到問題在哪裡，才會「心血來潮」的寫了這篇文。因為我每天都跟美方的政策專家混在一起，很自然的就用「他們的話」把事情寫出來，而且還把他們的情緒寫進去：Most folks in Washington… believe that the referendum is first and foremost an election gambit.…true allies do not undermine each other’s interests for immediate political gains. That Taipei fails to see this is mind boggling, and simply infuriates the Americans.No more one-sided complaints about Beijing or its cozy relations with America in front of U.S. officials who still feel betrayed and want apologies.很多屬於情緒的字眼對不對：mind boggling, infuriating, feel betrayed, want apologies, etc.這些話，都是他們身處外交場合，擺在心裡但說不出來的話。突然有人如此直白的寫出來，也等於是為他們宣洩了一些情緒。這提醒了我一件事：溝通時，把對方的情緒表達出來，有時比任何精闢理性的論點都要強大。★★★★★★★★★★★★📌 需要Andrew寫的政策分析評論和分析，請留言「I want to read the PacNet piece!」。★★★★★★★★★★★★ Presentality每天都在追蹤與分析跟英文溝通/寫作有關的文章，如果想要透過我們這些「閱讀筆記」一起學習，可在 FB 追蹤我們：https://www.facebook.com/presentality/📌 Presentality系列文章:1. 看貝佐斯致亞馬遜股東的最後一封信，學一些英文寫作小撇步https://bit.ly/3xCN1cC2. 英文演講實用的結構與技巧https://bit.ly/2PHu3Ax3. 在演講中的四種敘述角度https://bit.ly/39tNUtv4. 詩人Amanda Gorman的英文演講技巧https://bit.ly/39sI3on5. 從 Most Dangerous Place 文章，看經濟學人寫作邏輯https://bit.ly/3htqJEs6. 寫作的終極目標是「提供價值」https://bit.ly/3yA3gYe7. 看 Bloomberg學資深記者如何寫文章https://bit.ly/3i3am1P8. 用字遣詞的敏感度https://bit.ly/3pvVA5n圖片出處: https://careers.csis.org/

Question 3

one more thing email江魔的魔界（Kong Keen Yung 江健勇） 在Facebook 的評價

Accepted Answer

這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。（加拿大法院鏈接在此：https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8）

這位法王的桃色事件，我是幾年前才聽到。但，藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞，我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過，也有一些活佛跟她表白。（這不只是她，其他地方我也聽過不少）

這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。

很多時候發生這種事情，信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇，或者說她們也精神病，或者說她們撒謊。

我不排除有這種可能性，但，多過一位，甚至多位出來指證的時候，我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。

大寶法王的桃色事件，最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒，第二位是香港的女出家人，現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。

對大寶法王信徒來說，這一次的比較麻煩，因為是有孩子的。（關於有孩子的，我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時，就有聽聞）

如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA，這對法王和他的信徒來說，會很尷尬和矛盾，因為做或不做，都死。

你若問我，我覺得『人數是有力量的』，同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來，是不出奇的。

我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒，如果你們真的愛佛教，先別說批判，但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議，你是間接害了佛教。

（下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容，當中有很多細節。）

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?

F. Delay / Prejudice

CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).

[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.

[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.

[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.

[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.

BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.

[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.

[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.

[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.

[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.

[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.

[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.

[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.

[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.

[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.

[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.

[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.

[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:

a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;

b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;

c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;

d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.

[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.

[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.

[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.

[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:

I will definitely find a way to meet her

And you

Remember to take care of yourself if something happens

[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.

[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.

[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.

[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.

[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.

[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.

ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:

3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person

(a) is married to another person, or

(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and

(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or

(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.

[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).

[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.

[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.

[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.

[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.

[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.

[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.

[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.

[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.

[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.

[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.

[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:

[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.

[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:

1. Shelter:

(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?

(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?

(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:

(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?

(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?

(c) What were their feelings toward each other?

(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?

(e) Did they eat their meals together?

(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?

(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

3. Services:

What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:

(a) preparation of meals;

(b) washing and mending clothes;

(c) shopping;

(d) household maintenance; and

(e) any other domestic services?

4. Social:

(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?

(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?

5. Societal:

What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?

6. Support (economic):

(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?

(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?

(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

7. Children:

What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).

[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:

[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.

[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.

[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.

[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:

[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.

[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:

a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.

b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.

c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.

d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.

e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.

f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.

g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.

[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.

[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.

[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.

[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).

[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.

[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.

[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.

[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.

[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.

[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.

[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.

[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:

[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.

[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.

[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.

[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:

[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.

[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:

[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …

[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.

[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.

F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.

[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.

[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.

[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.

[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.

[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.

[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.

[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.

[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.

CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.

[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.

[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.

“Master Elwood”

關於 one more thing email ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

「one more thing email」的推薦目錄：

one more thing email 在 林薇Vivi Facebook 的精選貼文

About author

one more thing email 在 Eric's English Lounge Facebook 的最佳解答

About author

one more thing email 在 江魔的魔界（Kong Keen Yung 江健勇） Facebook 的精選貼文

About author

one more thing email 在 Jessica Vu Youtube 的最佳貼文

About author

one more thing email 在 長笛玩家鄭宇泰 Youtube 的精選貼文

About author

one more thing email 在 Lukas Engström Youtube 的最佳貼文

About author

你可能也想看看

搜尋相關連結

one more thing email 在林薇Vivi Facebook 的精選貼文

one more thing email 在江魔的魔界（Kong Keen Yung 江健勇） Facebook 的精選貼文

one more thing email 在長笛玩家鄭宇泰 Youtube 的精選貼文