關於 mr. children 香港 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

多謝城市女青年商會和各位評審頒發「2021全港時尚專業女性」獎項給我，更多謝我提名人、咨詢人及生意上的合作伙伴：
裕華國貨董事總經理余鵬春SBS, JP
鴻福堂主席兼執行董事謝寶達先生
My Turkish partner Mr. Irfan Karabulut
玫瑰蕾小學校長Mr. Kurt
我的好友胡渭康先生 孔藝淇先生 Polly, Rebecca
多謝你地今日都到場支持同分享呢個屬於我地大家的獎項。鼓勵我在土耳其有機食品批發並同時傳承及弘揚絲綢之路沿線國家的文化藝術發展。

把土耳其天然有機食材，從農場直送到消費者手上，係我品牌一直秉承的理念，ATA Organic 取自我的名Anita 一頭一尾的簡稱，ATA阿拉伯文意思上天予的禮物，ATA土耳其文意思是祖先，一切的根源 From Farm To You，提倡純天然無污染無添加的生活模式。

我同時積極與在港土耳其人攜手推廣文化藝術：設立土耳其馬賽克燈工作坊、為全港社群、中小學舉辦文化日等。

今天，世界正發生百年未有之大變局。民粹主義和貿易保護主義抬頭，甚至是影響全球的疫情等。我堅信文化藝術是人類的精神家園和智力財富，構建全人類和諧願望的共同體，我們應該用文化藝術的力量來支持這一願景，讓交流取代孤立，讓互鑑取代衝突。

在教育上，本人亦會繼續義務擔任玫瑰蕾小學Rosebud Primary School 非牟利國際小學諮詢委員會成員，繼續為社會推廣其愉快學習愉快校園的理念、促進不同種族的國際學生與本地主流學生的交流等。Thank you Principle Mr. Kurt to provide a happy learning environment for our children, by leading them to explore and inspire more possibilities. You are a wonderful principle to feel the child's exact needs with heart.

係度我想分享一下我的小故事：
「讀好書、找一份高薪厚職的工作、嫁個好老公亅是從小到大，父母老師灌輸予女孩子對於成功的定義。循規蹈矩的我自然走往主流的路，畢業在投資銀行IT部工作了四年時間。而然在2018年決心離開了一直掙扎着我的舒適區甚至成為我人生的轉捩點。雖然這份高薪厚職的工作惹來同輩羨慕、長輩欣賞。正因為這幾年的工作跟自我矛盾的時間，令我不停走訪世界各地發掘真實的自己。

2018年決心涉足幕前，參與不同的電視節目、選美，同時建立YouTube自媒體頻道，分享生活理財、文化生活的題材。我十分清楚涉足幕前，甚至選美絕對不是為了進入娛樂圈，而是建立自己的資源網絡，建立自平台及影響力。想不到，當年我參選的亞姐后冠贊助商沈博士最後更成為了我現在的生意拍檔。我想請在座各位現在問自己一個問題「你能講出你人生中最難忘的時刻嗎？亅「大學畢業、結婚、生小孩」是我問過眾多香港人而得到的答案。我希望以年青充滿熱誠的正能量、敢於追求夢想的心，用我的經歷來鼓舞平台上的觀眾勇於接受新事物、新體驗，創造自己獨一無二的非凡人生及故事。我堅信所有的女孩，都具有突破自己的無限可能。我們只活一次，但如果這一次活得夠燦爛，一次就夠了。來自哪裡的獨立自主女性，都一樣可以散發光彩，成為不刻意的焦點。

最後，我再次感謝JCI給我的鼓勵，也祝賀同樣獲得這榮譽的得獎者，希望大家繼續努力，發揮自身力量為社會作出更大貢獻。希望會後能夠繼續同你地有更多既交流。
#全港時尚專業女性選舉
#全港時尚專業女性2021
#逆風翱翔 #hkpels #girlspower

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”

Menclub專訪全文：

正當大家以為林作與鍾培生的「培生擂台」暫告一段落，大家可以食住花生等九月擂台分勝負 (起碼我本來是這樣認為的)，誰知這個時候曾經參加過2016年《香港先生》的梁裕恆 (Flow) 卻發文指自已「睇唔過眼」、覺得鍾培生「以為有少少錢喺香港就惡哂」，更出價100萬零一蚊、「唔戴頭套兼讓單手單腳」，希望與鍾培生一戰。
觀乎其他傳媒為Flow冠上「落選港男」、「抽水王」等稱號，而他又曾多次於個人平台評論娛樂圈事件，大家可能會認為Flow今次也是「慣常的抽水賺名氣」。但如果認真聽過Flow講述他發文的原因，你就會理解——雖然未必人人同意——他其實是真心「為弱勢社群發聲！」

「主要是看不過眼這件事。」說起「100萬零一蚊」的發文，Flow用與外表截然不同、甚至可以說是有點害羞的語氣解釋，「用這樣方式去打人，大家都知道不對，他 (林作) 只是留了一個言，然後你 (鍾培生) 用100萬去美化這個擂台。那如果我有錢又好好打，我給一個吸引到你的價錢叫你上擂台，其實是可以打死你，可以合法殺人。我覺得這種價值觀、這種事，不應存在於香港，香港不是行這套。」
「有人說『是林作自己接受，不能怪人』，但假若我有少少錢，我見到個乞衣，跟他說『給十萬蚊你同我食咗舊屎佢』，無論乞衣接受不接受，其實都是侮辱了他，大家都應該明白這個道理。」
「如果大家都不支持他，其實我完全不需要出聲。大部份富二代、富三代都比較低調，但他這麼高調，還要用這個姿態出來，還打正旗號說是做善事，那我就覺得應該要出聲批評。我不是想這件事 (他與鍾培生的100萬零一蚊對決) 實際發生，只是想帶出一個概念，我比你出多一蚊就可以打人，然後人家出100萬零二蚊又可以打我，香港不是走這一套，不是你出得起錢就可以打人。男人打交很平常，但原因與方式，這兩個他都是不合理的。」

而對於林作，Flow指自己是看電視節目知道這個人，並不知道關於他的花邊新聞，只覺得他是名校出身，說話有文有路，而且「身為建制的既得利益者卻反建制」，所以他「頗欣賞這個人」。後來了解到林作的過去，「先知道原來他有點無厘頭。但無厘頭只是形象，周星馳也很無厘頭，但他其實在諷刺世事。」
Flow也直言如果他是林作，他都會上台迎戰，「有風骨的人，被人這樣踩到上心口，讓我選也會打，不懂得打都要打——其實明烚他，為甚麼不比賽踢波？林作踢波叻；為甚麼兩個文人不比賽辯論？為甚麼是用自己的強項，業餘拳王，去打一個讀書人？網民說林作不是讀書人，讀到世界一級學府都不是讀書人？形象是形象，他是讀書人就是讀書人，我今日穿西裝打呔，我都是個粗人，不是斯文人。」
「大家也說林作不是平民，但一個住緊間屋廿幾億，一個住緊幾千萬，相對之下怎會不是平民？如果大家覺得因為林作的形象有爭議就可以打他，那大家這一兩年抗爭為了甚麼？其中一樣就是不能被權貴欺壓嘛！」

很明顯，從支持鍾培生 (或討厭林作) 的人的角度、加上Flow過往「抽水王」的稱號，很多人都覺得他發文只為抽水上位。作為回應，Flow先說抽水來自麻雀館，是麻雀館抽打牌的人的水；套用於網絡世界，麻雀館就是社交平台，而他與其他網民都只是打牌的人，「為甚麼我不能在我的社交平台發表任何言論看法？罵我的人來我這裏留言，為甚麼不是抽水？林作去鍾先生處留言是抽水，別人來罵我就不是抽水？那些人可能都有說支持鍾生打死林作，為甚麼他們不是抽水？」
「就算在TVB的時候，我都有不同政治事件發聲；社會運動時我第一次就到了現場、參加了九成以上遊行，但媒體不會報導，只會報導我負面的東西，於是就形成我現在的形象，說甚麼都會被人罵，被人說是抽水王。但其實08年有Facebook的時候我都已經是用這個方式做人，朋友可能會分享名牌、食物、旅行，我就喜歡分享自己的看法。」
「像謝安琪事件，我那時講到明，傭人偷東西是錯的，但你要考慮到他的出身是低教育水平、貧窮的國家，而且他放下自己的孩子父母去照顧你的孩子父母，其實是一件好慘的事，他們沒有選擇，其實是需要體諒他們、給他們一次機會。只要件事不是太嚴重，可以不需要報警，可以炒他魷魚把他遣返也成。但記者寫出來是『梁裕恆認為偷東西是對的』，網民又會說你的價值觀有問題，這樣去扭曲我說的一切。」
「但如果我借助公眾人物去發表我的看法，剛巧又有朋友的傭人偷東西，他看過我的文章，覺得可以網選擇開一面，那不就救了那位傭人？他仍然可以覺得需要嚴刑處分，沒有問題，但為甚麼我在我自己的平台分享也不可以呢？就會被人罵呢？」

如果你要我為Flow加上一個人物設定，我會說他是個老好人，甚至是個有幾分武俠小說中路見不平拔刀相助，雖千萬人吾往矣的俠客精神的老好人。他說他十幾歲開始做義工去山區 (但近年因為看到慈善機構的黑暗面而沒有再做)、本來想做警察 (「好彩沒做」)、後來去做消防員 (又因認為消防太官僚而離職)，早前去行個山遇到一群被遺棄的唐狗BB，從未養過狗的他也二話不說就領養了其中一隻。只是他出手、出聲的時機未必最好，幫人的心有時又過於熱切，效果就與理想中有些出入。
甚至他當年參選「港男」，都是希望能夠有更多的工具 (名氣與金錢) 去幫更多的人——當年說的是去山區起孤兒院——只是性格令他玩不來這個遊戲，結果四強被淘汰，只留下「落選港男」這個跟到現在的稱號。
「其實我好清楚那裏不適合我，那裏就像一個…皇朝體制，是沒有道理可以說，只有權力，甚麼都他說了算。我又不是會刷鞋那種人，我看到陳某某、曾某某是不會打招呼的，完全看不過眼。我回到公司真的感覺很不自然，就像有東西壓著你，覺得好辛苦，入面好虛偽，交不到朋友的。」

於是他在大台混過三年就離開，開設自己的健身事業，「是很高、很不錯的收入」。直到他為不同事件發聲，大家覺得他為商機抽水，導致收入大跌一半，亦是他唯一感到後悔的時刻。
「好多朋友都勸我，如果你不出聲，那個收入真的很不錯，但如果讓我重新選多一次，我還是會再說那些話。我覺得不能做自己的人生是最慘的事，對住塊鏡對得住自己、行出來氣宇軒昂，搵幾多錢其他沒甚麼所謂。」
「來來去去我就是做運動、看書、行山、放狗、傾計，這五件事就算再窮我也做得到，我就開心了。」

或者Flow的確是有顆幫助別人的心，但過往幾年面對現實也令他認清自己的能力。「當我離開很多慈善機構時，有個朋友跟我說，做人做好本份，幫身邊朋友已經很足夠。我突然間又醒一醒，是呀，我又真的未夠時間去陪媽媽。如果每個人都做好本份，幫下身邊的朋友，其實就已經足夠。我相信自己沒有足夠的能力去影響整個社會。」
「有人說我好心做壞事，但『好心做壞事』是搞壞件事，我現在只是搞壞了我自己，我自己承擔後果，我覺得是可以接受的。但如果有多一個人看得明，他們也會宣揚這個想法出去。」
「我也知道好難去洗走 (大家對他的既定印象)，但我幾希望透過這個訪問洗走它。可能我讀書不多，支筆不夠好，但希望我的語氣態度，能讓大家知道我不是在說謊。」
(完)
Editor: 魏文青
Photo: Casper @ MenClub
Video: Ivan @MenClub
Makeup & Hair: Scarlett Yeung
Styling: MR. BIG Children
Wardrobe:Artist's Own、LINDBERG

四國的德島縣神山町是一個成功地方創生的城鎮，近年竟然吸引了不少日本年輕人從一線城市搬前往工作。這個原本沒落淍零的村落如何起死回生？行程第三天來個深度遊，半日的單車遊輕鬆遊覽神山町，旅行中遇見的人和事都令我有深刻感受。相信假以時日，定能發展成德島旅遊景點。
　　
晚上回到德島市，介紹一間很適合作下午茶的餐廳，再到阿波舞會館，乘纜車登上眉山看夜景。在德島的最後一餐，在德島市最熱鬧地區的居酒屋品嚐德島地道美食，來個完美的完結！

▶ 訂閱：http://bit.ly/tlyt_subs　　
　　
?【和歌山．德島．淡路．神戶】系列
全輯收看：https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLU7-BehoKBXlmVbHb4rMHE9SwqTJf32Zt
　　　
#四國 #德島 #神山町 #日本深度遊　#日本vlog
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
【影片中的資訊】
?　カラオケ鳥居－
　　捐款資訊｜https://www.in-kamiyama.jp/art/donation-reconstruct-karaoke-torii/
　　信用卡付款｜https://bit.ly/3bsxJeU

?　神山最近新開的店－『Buddha Cafe』：
　　https://setouchifinder.com/tw/detail/17654
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
想去日本自由行的話，也可以找我的一班旅遊顧問們替你規劃行程喔！
https://travela.hk/trip-planning/
　　
Music: https://www.bensound.com ＆ Mr. Children-Kurumi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
更多資訊：
【Klook】日本4G上網卡（香港機場領取）- http://bit.ly/2SS7Wob
- HKD 108up
-7 / 8天無限數據流量，網速最高達150Mbps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
【Follow/訂閱莎朗@TraveLa日本自由行的頻道！】
◈　Facebook專頁：http://fb.com/travela.hk
◈　IG：@travela.hk
◈　Youtube ：http://bit.ly/travelachannel
◈　網站/Blog：https://travela.hk/

? 大樹先生Ultra Violet波波 夢幻登場 ?
寫下 #想去加1 就有機會拿最新色大樹球盒

「大樹先生的家」最具人氣，?堪稱 #台灣 No 1️⃣ 。Ms Leely 和Pbear 之前去了「大樹先生」香港的分店！?

這裡超過6千呎，?除了用餐地方，亦劃分了多個不同年齡、喜好的兒童遊戲區。? 除了有Pbear 最愛的車車玩具? 和積木，還有「大樹先生」由 #台灣直送的招牌波波！波波池會定期轉換波波顏色。? 期間限定 #紫色 實色和透明款，在燈光照射下特別夢幻。

這季，大樹先生特別選用了色彩權威Pantone特選的2018年度代表色 Ultra Violet（紫外光色）? ，Pantone形容「紫外光色能傳達獨創性、創造力及前瞻性思維，為人們指向未來」?。大樹先生認為，這樣的創造與未來，不正是孩子們最好的象徵！Children ARE the future ! ?

??大樹先生的家獨創，港台各店都堅持每三個月全新更換波波♻️（不過別擔心，都是可回收再利用的環保材質的！），保證孩子在波波池的衛生與安全都是100%，是他們決不妥協的堅持。在顏色的選擇上，?他們特別使用大樹招牌的半透明與實色混搭，呈現最美最夢幻的Ultra Violet，讓夢幻感與未來感兼具，讓波波池不再只是熱鬧就好，我們希望美的種子，從小萌芽！?

餐廳亦非常注重清潔衛生，? 每三個月更換波波＋大樹獨家洗球機，⚗️ 每次開場前和結束後都會都會用專業洗球機清潔波波池，務求讓家長小孩玩得安心。? 大樹先生除了衛生外，?他們也希望帶給孩子們不同的色彩感官刺激，促進統合發展。您是不是也在搜集各個顏色呢⁉️

??? 去大樹先生Facebook Post寫下 “想去+1” 大樹先生將再送出10盒全新Ultra Violet波波，活動只到4/20 ，??得獎名單將公佈於大樹先生的家香港店粉絲團?趕快留言喔！！

p.s.期間限定 Like ??大樹先生的家 #Facebook 和check-in 可免費送你一杯 #珍珠紅茶！?

——————————————-
地址：香港荔枝角長順街15號1F
預約電話：3184 0033
試業期間營業時間：星期三至日：11:30~14:30、15:00~17:30（逢星期一、星期二休館清潔）
最低消費：6歲以下平日$69 HKD 假日$79HKD 清潔費

———————————————

大樹先生的家 Mr. Tree - 香港店

如果喜歡Ms Leely & Pbear 記得Follow 我地

?Facebook
www.facebook.com/Msleelyandpbear
?IG
www.instagram.com/BabyPrestonChan
❤️YouTube
www.youtube.com/c/Msleelyandpbear

【YOYO強打精選】 YOYO律動專區►► http://bit.ly/yoyodance_0509

【山頂纜車】
【杜莎夫人蠟像館】香港山頂道128號凌霄閣P101號鋪
【Mr Simms Olde Sweet Shoppe】香港中環擺花街37號地舖
【香港摩天輪】香港中環民光街33號
【天星小輪】
【香港沙田凱悅酒店】香港新界沙田澤祥街18號
【阿甘蝦餐廳】香港山頂道128號凌霄閣3曾304-305號鋪
【挪亞方舟】香港馬灣珀欣路33號
【Givres(玫瑰花雪糕)】香港灣仔皇后大道東200號利東街地下G38號鋪

【★★寶貝學習推薦★★】
大頭小狀元1-5季全集►► http://bit.ly/babybossall_0511
寶貝學英文►► http://bit.ly/yoyoenglish_0511
【訂閱YOYOTV】►► https://goo.gl/PCO1FZ