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

【10.20集結案】

//2019 年 10 月 20 日九龍遊行案，前民陣召集人陳皓桓、民主黨前主席何俊仁、社民連前立法會議員梁國雄等 7 人，被指煽惑他人參與未經批准集結、組織未經批准集結等。7 人早前承認控罪，法官胡雅文今（1 日）在區域法院判 7 人監禁 11 至 16 個月。除了黃浩銘，其餘被告的刑期與早前 8.18、8.31、10.1 未經批准集結案刑期同期執行。//

以下是文遠的感言：

【吳文遠 - 10.20九龍遊行案件感言】

這是一宗政治案件，所以我認為這篇陳詞適合放在政治脈絡下開展。

我們生活在急劇轉變及充滿挑戰的時代。基於政府所謂「安全」的理由，記者、報館、網台主持、學者、教師、學生、藝人、歌手、工會人、社運人、民意代表以及許多市民，都一一被迫沉默，以至逐個被拘捕、檢控、囚禁。

尤有甚者，「安全」的定義還在不斷挪移及擴大。昨日出版的一篇報紙文章、一次演講、一種主張、一個標語，今天都可能被視為對「安全」的威脅。

短短數年前那些通常被判罰款或社區服務令的行動，現在會被判監禁。這裡曾經存在和而不同及真誠辯論觀點的言論空間，但現在只剩下觸目驚心的紅線。

每天都帶來法規的重新演繹，每天都突破荒謬的下限。有他們的眼中，現在甚至連兒童繪本都成為了對「安全」的威脅。

問題無可避免地浮現：究竟這些法規是要保護誰的「安全」？是公民的自由，抑或是實際上已經非常有權力的人的權力？

我們追求怎樣的秩序？這些法規的設計，是為了所有公民能夠享有法治、自由、公平競爭及繁榮的機會嗎？還是旨在引領我們進入一個政府不受挑戰及不受限制的時代？

我們發現自身正處於一個這樣的時代，人們需要作出看似簡單卻極為困難的選擇——就如哈維爾所指——我們要活在真實中，還是要服從於謊言及荒謬？

在我追求的真實生活中，我們只是像《國王的新衣》中的小孩那樣呼喊：「喂，國王根本冇著衫喎！」

—————-

【Avery Ng: On October 20 Kowloon Rally】

This is a political case, so I think it is appropriate to frame my remarks within the political context of this matter.

We live in rapidly changing and challenging times. Journalists, newspaper publishers, broadcasters, academics, teachers, students, artists, singers, trade unionists, political activists, democratically elected representatives, and many other citizens are being silenced, arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned by the Hong Kong government for supposed reasons relating to “security”.

What’s more, the definition of this “security” is constantly shifting and expanding. A newspaper article published yesterday, a speech, an opinion, a slogan--even a gesture may be treated as a threat to security today.

Actions that would have previously and sometimes rightly merited community service or fines just a few short years ago, now lead to the possibility of jail. Where once there was the space to disagree agreeably and debate ideas honestly. Now there is intolerance.

Every day brings a new re-interpretation of the rules. Every day we reach a new level of absurdity. Even children’s cartoon books have now reached the status that they are seen by some as a threat to “security”.

The inevitable question arises: Whose security is being protected--the liberty of citizens? Or are these laws in fact protecting and securing the power of the already-powerful?

What kind of order are we seeking? Are these laws designed to uphold the rule of law, ensure freedom, a level playing field, and the chance of prosperity for all citizens? Or are they meant to usher in an era in which the government can rule unchallenged and unchecked?

In the times that we find ourselves in, one needs to make a choice that is at once simple yet immensely difficult. As Vaclav Havel writes: Do we live in the truth? Or conform to lies and absurdity?

In my pursuit to live in the truth, we are merely the kid who yelled “hey, the Emperor wears no clothes.”

———————————
文遠交低話大家記住一定要撐 #文遠Patreon 呀！

⭐️支持文遠⭐️請訂閱Patreon⭐️
⭐️Please show your support by subscribing to Avery’s Patreon ⭐️
www.patreon.com/AveryNg

最高法院，你說的算？你要確定neh？

　根據最高法院審理110年度台上字第3266號湯景華殺人案件新聞稿：「依聯合國人權事務委員會在西元2018年對公政公約第6條做出第36號一般意見的拘束力解釋，對應到我國刑法架構，所謂最嚴重的罪行是指涉及直接（確定）故意殺人的犯行，間接（不確定）故意殺人則不可以適用死刑。」

　為了釐清英文intent/intention/intentional/intentionally的意思，半夜特別去找出之前從亞馬遜買的美國刑法二手教科書，當時，那本書從訂購之後隔了好一段時間才寄來，除了花好多天以及一些運費以外，地址還被是寫中國的一省。（書目資料：Criminal Law Today (5th Edition) 5th edition by Schmalleger, Frank J., Hall, Daniel (2013) Paperback）

　回到正題，根據書的內容，犯罪的主觀要素分成普遍故意（general intent）以及特定故意（specific intent）。並舉例，如果行為人內心渴望犯罪結果發生，則有特定故意；如果行為人是故意為行為但缺乏渴望結果發生的這個想法（例如：是為了讓入侵者配合不侵害自己的財產而拿斧頭砍入侵者的腳），則屬於普遍故意。
　知道了兩個種類的故意（intent）之後，現在我們要來與確定／不確定故意來做對應。

　根據美國的模範刑法典（Model Penal Code，MPC），將犯罪主觀狀態分成4種，分別是：「蓄意」（purposeful）、「明知」（knowing）、「魯莽」（reckless）以及「過失」（negligence）。

　書中並指出，MPC中的「蓄意」與普通法上的「特定意圖」是相同的，從這句話可以推論出：普遍故意最重落在MPC中的「明知」，或者也有可能落在「魯莽」，而「過失」由於明顯差距太大，這裡不考慮。

　而MPC的「明知」，是指在知悉結果是很可能發生的主觀狀態下為行為，並且不要求行為人對該結果發生的特別意圖。由於我國第13條故意的類型沒有再區別是否有使結果發生的特定意圖，因此可能相當於我國《刑法》第13條第1項「確定故意」或第2項「不確定故意」。

　至於下面一個等級的「魯莽」，則是對於主觀犯罪要素的「知」介於有與無之間的中性狀態（行為人沒有希望事情發生，也沒有希望事情不發生，在魯莽的狀態下行事），大概就是我國「不確定故意」與「有認識過失」中間那條界線（在我國是非黑即白，在美國是一種獨立的主觀狀態）。

　套用到本案中，如果根據最高法院新聞稿中採用的事實：「湯景華預見用火點燃停放騎樓的機車，#極易 造成火勢延燒到本案住宅及附近車輛，而且凌晨3 時左右，是一般人熟睡時刻，本案住宅樓上住戶 #會逃生不及，#而發生死亡的結果，也不違背其本意……」則應該是對應到MPC的「明知」。

　承上所述，既然不確定故意落在MPC的「明知」與「魯莽」之間，而本案行為人主觀上具有殺人罪的「明知」狀態，那顯然具備普遍故意（general intent）。這也與People v. McDaniel（2011）案中提及：「A basic definition of general intent is the intent to perform the criminal act or actus reus. If the defendant acts intentionally but without the additional desire to bring about a certain result, or do anything other than the criminal act itself, the defendant has acted with general intent.」即使沒有特定意圖，仍使用「intentionally」的用語的情形相符。因此回到第36號一般性意見第35點，本案符合intentional killing的要件，並非不能宣告死刑。

　雖然MPC中的「purposely」常被稱為「intentionally」，但是個人認為，從第36號一般性意見第35點的脈絡及體系觀察，「intentionally」只是要強調具備的故意狀態，與過失作區別，而無意排除「不確定故意」。

　當然啦，以上很大篇幅是參酌英美法來解釋。不過無論如何，最高法院要把沒有在《兩公約》的條文上寫的文字拿來判決，還要自己當老大自為改判被告燒死6人而歷審都判死刑的判決，連雙重確認的機會都不想留，而且判了就會定讞、未來就算用非常上訴或再審也不能判更重的，那更有義務要清楚澄清「根據《兩公約》不確定故意，不能宣告死刑」是從哪邊出來的。是把「直接且故意」錯譯成「直接故意」？還是道聽塗說？不然，難道是抄襲廢死聯盟的文章？（前一篇：https://www.facebook.com/FuriousProsecutor/posts/1822169637957458）

　而且，固然主觀狀態是刑法中極為重要的要素，但真的能夠因為主觀狀態不在法律歸類裡面的最嚴重的等級，就能outweigh其他所有情狀，認為不是最嚴重的犯罪嗎？何況，最高法院在98年台上字第2750號刑事判決敘明：「故意屬犯罪之不法要素，即構成要件該當性之主觀構成要件，除有特別規定外，及於直接故意與間接故意，並無軒輊。至在罪責判斷上，故意固具可非難性，惟直接故意抑間接故意，在科刑時於以行為人之責任為基礎上，兩者對罪責之成立，並無區別。僅於審酌同條各款之一切情狀時，可為諸多標準之一，且非必然後者較前者為低，而仍須視其各行為之具體情狀綜合判斷之。」

　如果因為主觀並非直接故意，就說不是最嚴重之罪，那我們也可以從犯罪的每個層面看，例如：只燒死6個人，沒有撞死49個人，不是最嚴重之罪；或者，行為人沒有對被害人凌虐、分屍，手段不是最殘忍，也不是最嚴重之罪。那麼這樣子解釋的話，沒有案件可以宣告死刑了。

　最高法院對於高等法院的判決，只要有點地方寫不夠充分就動輒發回，結果自己的判決（目前是新聞稿）卻交代得不清不楚。這就好像老師常常把班上同學的作業因為字跡不整的理由退回，結果老師自己的評語就像鬼畫符一樣。

　就算我學藝不精，上面寫的通篇都錯，貴為終審法院，而且還是自為改判，不管從哪裡得到這個判決的法源以及推理，一定要交代清楚，而不是一句話「第36號一般意見的拘束力解釋，對應到我國刑法架構，所謂最嚴重的罪行是指涉及直接（確定）故意殺人的犯行，間接（不確定）故意殺人則不可以適用死刑。」帶過就可以的。

　如有錯誤或其他意見歡迎批評指正。

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”

Note download 筆記下載 : https://hermanutube.blogspot.hk/2016/01/youtube-pdf.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biology 所有 videos 的 Playlist 可看：
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8oSnhUSkuaWV9d7FbyJDSPE
分類的 Playlist 可看：
1. Cells and Molecules of Life 細胞與生命分子… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8pimOHKxXgEB4A7BkIU_fvE
2. Genetics and Evolution遺傳與進化… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8qxXqviCcE59G2o2S-SZmLz
3A. Essential life processes in plants植物維持生命的活動… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8oaLqXiViAOyF-wt_wxD62w
3B. Essential life processes in animals動物維持生命的活動… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8petIdjLSGd9BbyfUcDdHim
3C. Reproduction, growth and development生殖、生長和發育... https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8ramUz1FlN0c8vG47a8qChA
3D. Coordination and response協調和反應… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8o6aa0bT1nTs5QbaBpJ69W7
3E. Homeostasis體內平衡… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8qIF_r_7bLzL_gbkzL3NRiZ
3F. Ecosystems 生態系… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8qHQPt5HmieWo0EjPGnmD81
4. Health and Disease健康與疾病… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8oWMLSCZvYm_HxnOCnw0ePt
5. Human Physiology: Regulation and Control人體生理學︰調節與控制… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8r0Af7WKwjPf5Ih3hk4rRpw
6. Applied Ecology應用生物學… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8rbkiK9KEPGav6_z6otcqA7
7. Microorganisms and Humans微生物與人類… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8pA3IcS8sxv5JgWHZ0Ifvrk
8. Biotechnology生物工程… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8oNgT2rFFmtFP_PBDbCqn0N
Notes Only Version : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8osiwrVWzQRQ9wWCLgZUYS5

Definition 背誦︰
中英對照︰ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8pgi_VnjcUHByKdnDfPKfDh
純英版︰ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8qhbqCN5tsVn2DeUqYFzYPV
純中版︰ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8rAJGqx6SNLcG1WQGTFocOL

HKDSE Biology Past Paper Solution :
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8q0icgpscQYKrWcaywLK7g2
HKCEE Biology Past Paper Solution :
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8oE7NKu3W5odiwwws6WerB0
HKALE Biology Past Paper Solution :
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8qDsX40O4tczDYBPktC06fq
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please subscribe 請訂閱 :
https://www.youtube.com/hermanyeung?sub_confirmation=1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HKDSE Mathematics 數學天書 訂購表格及方法︰
https://www.sites.google.com/view/HermanYeung
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger : https://goo.gl/SBmVOO
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/hy.page
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/HermanYeung
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note download 筆記下載 : https://hermanutube.blogspot.hk/2016/01/youtube-pdf.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biology 所有 videos 的 Playlist 可看：
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8oSnhUSkuaWV9d7FbyJDSPE
分類的 Playlist 可看：
1. Cells and Molecules of Life 細胞與生命分子… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8pimOHKxXgEB4A7BkIU_fvE
2. Genetics and Evolution遺傳與進化… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8qxXqviCcE59G2o2S-SZmLz
3A. Essential life processes in plants植物維持生命的活動… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8oaLqXiViAOyF-wt_wxD62w
3B. Essential life processes in animals動物維持生命的活動… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8petIdjLSGd9BbyfUcDdHim
3C. Reproduction, growth and development生殖、生長和發育... https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8ramUz1FlN0c8vG47a8qChA
3D. Coordination and response協調和反應… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8o6aa0bT1nTs5QbaBpJ69W7
3E. Homeostasis體內平衡… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8qIF_r_7bLzL_gbkzL3NRiZ
3F. Ecosystems 生態系… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8qHQPt5HmieWo0EjPGnmD81
4. Health and Disease健康與疾病… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8oWMLSCZvYm_HxnOCnw0ePt
5. Human Physiology: Regulation and Control人體生理學︰調節與控制… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8r0Af7WKwjPf5Ih3hk4rRpw
6. Applied Ecology應用生物學… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8rbkiK9KEPGav6_z6otcqA7
7. Microorganisms and Humans微生物與人類… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8pA3IcS8sxv5JgWHZ0Ifvrk
8. Biotechnology生物工程… https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8oNgT2rFFmtFP_PBDbCqn0N
Notes Only Version : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8osiwrVWzQRQ9wWCLgZUYS5

Definition 背誦︰
中英對照︰ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8pgi_VnjcUHByKdnDfPKfDh
純英版︰ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8qhbqCN5tsVn2DeUqYFzYPV
純中版︰ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8rAJGqx6SNLcG1WQGTFocOL

HKDSE Biology Past Paper Solution :
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8q0icgpscQYKrWcaywLK7g2
HKCEE Biology Past Paper Solution :
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8oE7NKu3W5odiwwws6WerB0
HKALE Biology Past Paper Solution :
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8qDsX40O4tczDYBPktC06fq
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please subscribe 請訂閱 :
https://www.youtube.com/hermanyeung?sub_confirmation=1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HKDSE Mathematics 數學天書 訂購表格及方法︰
https://www.sites.google.com/view/HermanYeung
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger : https://goo.gl/SBmVOO
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/hy.page
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/HermanYeung
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note download 筆記下載 : https://hermanutube.blogspot.hk/2016/01/youtube-pdf.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economics 所有 videos 的 Playlist 可看： https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8o8H4_PAK1oLM_vhUpd0Xk9
分類的 Playlist 可看：
A. Basic Economics Concepts 基本經濟概念 … https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8qqV5XGkWjbTy23XwkqNE0I
B. Firms & Production 廠商與生產 … https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8qrlkuI1wdJUa3UZs0txvjN
C. Market & Price 市場與價格 … https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8oOWHDRwYI8hvuUhNp9qcQk
D. Competition & Market structure 競爭與市場結構 … https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8q982crii7XomNNjIx-f8rd
E. Efficiency, Equity & the role of government 效率、公平和政府的角色 … https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8onmTnt7Dghh4pVud9e3PPU
F. Measurement of Economic Performance 經濟表現的量度 … https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8qIHKIc6pUHUIfTXc3Cmjv3
G. National Income Determination & Price Level 國民收入決定及價格水平 … https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8pkBABdTOtjs_8aPoTdUf61
H. Money & Banking 貨幣與銀行 … https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8oFN6Fe_5aEk0mnJpfBe0S1
I. Macroeconomic Problems & Policies 宏觀經濟問題和政策 … https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8onndGtdUUvNQpcmax7a1VX
J. International trade & finance 國際貿易和金融 … https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8poqrVsbrWDq5V2-ZsNAwBi
E1. Elective I : Monopoly Pricing, Anti-competitive Behaviours and Competition Policy 壟斷定價、反競爭行為及競爭政策 … https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8r5Fz1mXcELz7CQ79Omr6nb
E2. Elective II: Extension of Trade Theory, Economic Growth and Development 貿易理論之延伸、經濟增長及發展 … https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8pesBkw164n1FW0G_UwoiT0
Notes Only Version : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8pTsr5jwcpqD4fcPTQZetR8

Definition 背誦︰
中英對照︰ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8ohGrOAWAsVQK3PFBqrXf2V
純英版︰ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8pFSFPWu1LJvURZujQzVJvD
純中版︰ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8odYV54ZMTkj2m7BWvMU9pB
電子書 (中英對照版 - 230頁) (HK$19.90)︰
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=ax3kDwAAQBAJ&rdid=book-ax3kDwAAQBAJ&rdot=1&source=gbs_vpt_read&pcampaignid=books_booksearch_viewport
電子書 (純英文版 - 159頁) (HK$19.90)︰
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=Xh3kDwAAQBAJ&rdid=book-Xh3kDwAAQBAJ&rdot=1&source=gbs_atb&pcampaignid=books_booksearch_atb
電子書 (純中文版 - 159頁) (HK$19.90)︰
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=Yh3kDwAAQBAJ&rdid=book-Yh3kDwAAQBAJ&rdot=1&source=gbs_vpt_read&pcampaignid=books_booksearch_viewport
_______________________________________________
HKDSE Econ Past Paper Solution : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8rq7kTVAuDerVqrfT6WstsV
HKCEE Econ Past Paper Solution : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8oVtFNEdJIya9ANc1X5nhTw
HKALE Econ Past Paper Solution : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzDe9mOi1K8pXFnsqOlPtL3DtsDsb7w4l
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please subscribe 請訂閱 :
https://www.youtube.com/hermanyeung?sub_confirmation=1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HKDSE Mathematics 數學天書 訂購表格及方法︰
http://goo.gl/forms/NgqVAfMVB9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger : https://goo.gl/SBmVOO
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/hy.page
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/HermanYeung
------------------------------------------------------------------------------