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”
mr. children 台灣 在 [心得] 190201-02「重力と呼吸」Live in Taiwan - 批踢踢實業坊 的推薦與評價
如夢似幻的二月初。
他們正式出道的1992年，剛好是我出生的那年，喜歡上他們後就擅自地認為這是命運。
十周年時還沒來得及認識他們，二十周年時還無法自由出國，想著至少要在三十周年時見他
們一面，就算是在遠得要命蛋頂也沒關係。
從公佈消息到演唱會的這段期間，歷經了人生第一次搶不到票→買到加開場次2月1日的票→
看完2月1日當晚立刻找2月2日的票→起了個大早排2月2日的當日票→經過一番波折終於候補
買到，最終成功的兩場都參與。
結果和這四位大叔的生人初見面比我預想中還要早了好幾年呀！但我更沒想到，居然能如此
近距離的參加拜神儀式，當然最重要的還是，在‧台‧灣！
先說結論，這絕對是我看過這麼多場演場會，從台上歌手的狀態到硬體設備的音場、燈光
、投影、甚至現場投放畫面、導播的轉場功力，都找不到瑕疵一場。演唱會結束了好幾天
餘韻仍然存在。想著如果有人將當天的畫面紀錄起來，將來能讓我們拿出來回味，能讓我
們向世界炫耀自己看了場多麼完美多麼經典的演出就好了。同時卻又矛盾的希望不要影像
化，因為好想獨佔這兩天用眼睛用耳朵用心所感受到的一切，想要這一切只屬於那幾個小
時待在台北小巨蛋的我們。
歌單為兩天共通，基本上是以去年10月發行的專輯「重力と呼吸」為基底，再加入幾首過
去發行的歌曲，以及這次巡迴台灣場才有的5首經典。
本身對搖滾區沒什麼興趣，加上我有著希望包包能放在自己身邊的奇怪堅持，所以兩天都
選擇了座位區，但座位不同和視野也會不同，感想會穿插。2月1日坐黃3E，我很喜歡這區
正中央能讓視野綜觀全場，CP值很高，靠走道的位置剛好正對著花道，適合預算不多且喜
歡看整體舞台又要趕車還不想麻煩別人借你過的人。2月2日的位置則是在紅2A，雖然是加
開區，但因為舞台設計的因素，撇除看不到主舞台的大螢幕外，這裡完全稱得上是神席，
即使不是前幾排也能感受到這區有多神。桜井さん時不時會走過來，ナかケー也會在靠紅
區的延伸舞台演奏，腳酸了也能坐下稍作歇息，整體來說是進可攻退可守的好位置。
那麼 就依序來回顧吧
01.SINGLES
第一天大概還在前奏，就覺得糟了，果然桜井さん的歌聲一出現......雖然一時半刻還無
法反應這是哪首歌，但哭吧！等了這麼久的自己，哭吧！就算從三樓看過去，人好遠好小
但還是用已被淚水模糊的視線拼命地盯著台上的人們。第二天就有比較冷靜，邊欣賞著桜
井さん唱歌的側臉，邊默默地在心裡想「他真的要半百了嗎？」
02.Monster
這是首相較於其他，我比較不熟悉的歌，而且第一天我到歌曲中段時都還在哭，直到「大
丈夫」那段才意會到是Monster。很喜歡這段桜井さん語氣，有點性感有點狂妄卻又有點溫
暖，像是在告訴我們有什麼悲傷痛苦，都一起喊出來吧，沒問題的。
喔對了，唱這首歌時的桜井さん超級扭，尤其是第一天，
是會讓人覺得「他到底幾歲呀？？？」的程度。
03.himawari
「重力と呼吸」中我很喜歡的一首歌，現場的看點是桜井さん那神奇的小跳步和轉圈圈，
第一天太遠看不清楚，只覺得這首歌其實還滿哀傷的，搭配著可愛的神奇的小跳步，這樣
對嗎（笑）。第二天距離變近後很專心看著他踏著節奏的腳很專心的再次咀嚼歌詞，突然
有種也許他是想表達歌曲那看破一切的灑脫感......吧！？的想法。
-MC- 簡短介紹 謝謝台飯「點」他們
04.tomorrow never knows ※
稱不上我心中的前幾名，但畢竟是經典，前奏的音一下，還是忍不住驚呼了，副歌全場一
起的今日も/まだ還有oh oh，那像是跨越了語言和國籍的一體感，滿腔熱血又感動。
05.HANABI
不管聽幾次都覺得果然是首好歌，也終於實現「もう一回、もう一回」時比1的小小心願。
06.NOT FOUND
07.抱きしめたい ※
第二天因前面站了6首歌加上穿錯鞋子腳實在是很酸，這首選擇坐下欣賞，但不好意思請前
面的人也坐下，反正也看不到台上，乾脆閉上眼睛專心的用耳朵聆聽，也是另一種感受，
推薦給容易腳痠的人另一種享受演唱會的方式（？）
08.花-Memento-Mori-
09.addiction
10.Dance Dance Dance
11.ハル
這段桜井さん說想離大家更近一點，四人都移動到搖滾區旁的延伸舞台演出。整體來說，
這四首歌連結起的橋段是我這次最喜歡的。以沉穩的【花-Memento-Mori-】進入，接著是
能讓氣氛熱絡的【addiction】和演唱會定番的互動歌曲【Dance Dance Dance】最後回到
溫暖的【ハル】，要動感有動感，要溫柔也沒問題，起伏很大卻一氣呵成，一點也不突兀
簡單來說就是，很適合來拿傳教的一個段落。
視覺效果上，則是運用了布幕投影及光影變化，讓延伸舞台不只是舞台，印象很深刻的是
【ハル】，第一天可能是因為座位角度的關係沒看到投影，第二天坐在側邊，就能很清楚
看到畫面上的季節影像，搭配歌曲後段飄落的櫻花瓣紙片，那畫面美極了，彷彿進入了一
個以ミスチル的音樂所建造出的春之國度，讓本來就很喜歡【ハル】的我，又在心裡幫這
首歌提高分數。
12.and I love you
每次這首歌時，腦海的畫面都是灰色的，聽了現場版又覺得灰色好像又深了一階，喜歡歌曲
一開始像是在對著誰喊話的回音感，還有副歌那不顧一切、竭盡全力卻又讓人感到隱隱作痛
的I love you。
13.しるし
能算是ミスチル眾多的歌曲中，我心中能排入前十名的歌曲，因此也是首想專心的歌曲，
不想擺動雙手，不想踏著節奏，只想將自己的眼睛和耳朵專注在台上唱歌的桜井さん，果然
是首好歌呀，能聽到現場的「ダーリンダーリン」真的太好了。
14.海にて、心は裸になりたがる
「重力と呼吸」中最喜歡的歌，從前奏到歌詞全部都好喜歡，2月2日後更是加深了我對這
首的喜愛程度，因為這首能讓桜井さん一直往靠近兩側的花道跑，在最後的「今心は裸に～
なりたがっているよ～」時，還能近距離看到桜井さん開心地對著ナかケー唱歌，ナかケー
還會對著桜井さん遞給他的麥克風唱出「オーオー！！」
加分！！太優秀了！！這首歌！！！！！！（冷靜
15.innocent world ※
在家練習了很多次，但第二段的歌詞還是唱錯了（不重要。不過我一直很喜歡演唱到這首時
台下很有默契的打著拍子，到了特定橋段還會自動變奏，能親自參與也算是實現了一個心願。
16.Worlds end
和歌曲沒什麼關係，但兩天我都是在這首暗自讚嘆台上演出者的狀態，不知道是不是因為自
己就在那個空間裡，有現場的氣氛加成，總覺得這幾個小時所接收到的，比我以往聽的看的
任何一張ミスチル影音產品中他們呈現出來的狀態都還要完美，加上現場精準的燈光和色調
要不是桜井さん偶爾會來幾個即興音符，我真的會以為自己只是在看3D投影搭配立體環繞音
效。
17.皮膚呼吸
什麼皮膚呼吸，我根本只想屏息聽完。
EN01.here comes my love
初聽覺得還好，但會越聽越愛的歌，特別喜歡這首歌的層次感，一開始只有琴鍵聲與桜井
さん的歌聲，後來鼓聲加入，接著其他樂器陸續跟進，最後在副歌爆發，聽了現場版後更喜
歡了，後段的吉他獨奏也是大推薦。
EN02.風と星とメビウスの輪
事先想保留驚喜，因此這次巡迴的歌單都沒看，這首前奏一出來，我的嘴角都不知道上揚了
多少度，也是ミスチル眾多的歌曲中，我心中能排入前十名的歌曲呀！特別喜歡「時流の早
さ」那段歌詞，就是這樣吧，歌頌著這世界的美好，但不會隱瞞這世界會有的醜陋，你以為
是黑暗，卻總能在他們的歌曲中找到光芒和力量，能寫出這像詩一般的歌詞的桜井さん真的
太令人尊敬了。還有那讓人讚嘆不已的投影畫面及掃射全場的燈光，最震撼非這首莫屬。
EN03.sign ※
上一首是聽到前奏就嘴角上揚，那這首就是讓我嘴巴大開。【sign】也是ミスチル眾多的歌
曲中，我心中能排入前十名的歌曲呀！不，是前三名。那時某個我很喜歡的日本雜誌模特兒
在接受訪談時提到他們，讓當時不過是國中生的我 就能知道世界上有個名為Mr.Children的
樂團，讓我開始聽他們的歌，讓我不知不覺成為歌迷，而【sign】就是當年打開這扇大門，
對我來說非常重要的一把鑰匙。居然能第一次參戰就聽到這首意義非凡的歌，太幸福了吧！
等我回過神來已經淚流滿面了。原本以為第二天會比較冷靜，結果沒有，一想到自己有多麼
幸運，眼淚又不禁留下
EN04.your song
「重力と呼吸」 中我很喜歡的歌曲，很甜，每次聽心情都會覺得世界真美好，但可能是
因為排在【sign】後面，前一首歌的餘韻太強了，因此兩天都是哭著聽完（笑）
05.終わりなき旅 ※
放在最後，太犯規了。
也許是錯覺，就算是錯覺也沒關係，但我真的覺得他們這兩天好開心，一臉寵溺，完全就是
要把台灣歌迷疼到心坎去。在這首歌時大家也舉起入場前拿到的「台湾♡ミスチル」手幅。
全場一致的心，配上完美燈光照耀，還有他們像是說著「我們收到了」的表情，那絕對是想
一輩子記在心中的畫面。
在演唱會結束後立刻在回程的車上編輯了歌單無限播放，試著用文字整理思緒並回顧這如夢
似幻卻實際經歷的美好，也更深刻的感受到能認識Mr.Children真的，太好了。相信他們一
定會帶著他們的音樂再次踏上這片島嶼，希望我這沒來由的自信能夠實現，我衷心期盼著。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 125.230.69.83
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/MrChildren/M.1549472597.A.759.html
... <看更多>