關於 why family history is important ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

⭐️五月是美國亞太裔傳統月！美國亞太裔外交官在美國國務院扮演重要的角色，在AIT的運作上更是如此！在整個五月份，我們將為各位介紹AIT亞太裔官員的重要貢獻。今天要和大家介紹的是AIT經濟組副組長邵靄帝(Arati Shroff)的故事。

✨印度裔美國人是美國第二大亞裔族群，長久以來為美國開闢新的傳統和發展途徑。我父母是在印度獨立運動時期出生於印度，隨後於1970年代移民美國，攻讀更高的學位並尋找嶄新的機會。父母在美國拉拔我們長大時，就常常灌輸我們seva的觀念 (梵語中的無私的服務)，提醒我們時時幫助需要幫助的人，並為我們周遭的社群做出貢獻。

除了在美國慶祝印度新年排燈節 (Diwali) 及荷麗節 (Holi) 之外，我們也懷著seva的精神，在美國傳統節慶感恩節及聖誕節時，在當地遊民收容所、糧食補助庇護所及養老院擔任志工，希望能為沒有家人朋友在身邊的人們帶來溫暖。這份seva及服務他人的精神深深影響著我，這也是我隨後加入美國國務院並派駐海外擔任外交官的原因之一。

這幀照片攝於華府美國國務院的班傑明富蘭克林外交禮賓室，13年前我的家人一起來參加我的外交官宣誓就職典禮。我很高興有愈來愈多亞裔美國人加入公共服務的行列，代表並維護美國的民主理想和價值。現任美國副總統賀錦麗即是一位開路先鋒，讓其他亞裔美國人能跟隨她的腳步向前邁進。— AIT經濟組副組長邵靄帝(照片右二)

⭐️It’s Asian-American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month! AAPI diplomats are a vital part of the State Department, and especially our AIT operation! All month, we look forward to featuring the important contributions of our AAPI colleagues. Today we are sharing AIT Economic Deputy Chief Arati Shroff’s story with you.

✨Indian Americans are the second largest group of Asian Americans in the United States and have a rich history of forging new paths and traditions in America. My parents were born in India during the time of India’s independence movement and immigrated to the U.S. in the 1970s to pursue higher education and new opportunities. As they raised my siblings and me in America, my parents also instilled in us a sense of “seva,” (or “selfless service” in Sanskrit) to remind us to always help others in need and build and contribute to communities around us.

Alongside celebrating Indian holidays of Diwali and Holi in America, we also embraced the spirit of “seva” and volunteerism during traditional American celebrations of Thanksgiving and Christmas by volunteering at local homeless and food shelters and retirement homes to cheer up those missing their own families and loved ones. This sense of “seva” and service to others left a deep impression on me and is one of the reasons why I joined the U.S. Foreign Service to become a diplomat overseas.

This photo of my family is from my official swearing-in ceremony at the State Department’s Benjamin Franklin reception room in Washington, DC thirteen years ago. I am excited that Asian Americans are increasingly joining careers in public service to represent and preserve American democratic ideals and values. Current U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris has certainly blazed a trail for others Asian Americans to follow. — AIT Economic Deputy Chief Arati Shroff (the second one from the right-hand side)

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”

<脫口秀小訣竅中英翻譯-靈感篇>

文長注意!

之前小歐在脫口秀社團po了外國佛心大神脫口秀演員Gary Gulman，在twitter上連載的366個脫口秀小訣竅。

小妹就認領了靈感篇來翻譯。以下為22個小訣竅的中英文對照，若有翻的不盡理想的地方，請留言詳述，我會再看怎麼修改。原文和網誌版會放在留言處，方便大家查看。

---
Ideas
靈感

Tip No. 41: You know those quirky little things you do and think? Collect them in a file or on paper. Even if you’re a storyteller, you can use these as details to add depth and distinction to your jokes.
你了解自己做或想的古怪小事嗎? 把他們記錄在紙上或檔案夾裡。即使你是講故事的人，也可以將這些內容作為細節，以增加笑話的深度和特色。

GARY'S FAVORITES
Gary(原作者)的最愛
Tip No. 45: Don’t Hoard Jokes
Don’t worry about “burning” material on a special or album. Hoarding jokes may signal to your brain that you’re out of ideas. “You can’t use up creativity. The more you use, the more you have.” — Maya Angelou.
不要囤積笑話。不要怕在演出或專場用光自己累積的材料。囤積笑話會對你的大腦發出信號，暗示你已經沒有想法。如同Maya Angelou所說:”你無法耗盡創意。 你使用的越多，你擁有的就越多。”

Gary’s thoughts on Tip No. 45: This attitude has been crucial to an unprecedented streak of creativity over the last two years. I’ve written four hours of material, which is almost as much as I wrote in my first 23 years of comedy. Most important has been my health, this idea may be second.
Gary對此建議的想法: 在過去兩年中，這種態度對我的前所未有的創造力，有著至關重要的影響。我已經寫了四個小時的素材，這幾乎與我前23年的喜劇寫作一樣多。最重要的是我的健康，這個想法則排名第二位。

Tip No. 62: Look for inspiration everywhere. Paintings, music, poetry, rap, novels, nonfiction, short stories, theater, philosophy, etc. can all provide a spark for creativity. Cross-pollinate your work with broad influences and watch your creativity grow.
在各處尋找靈感。繪畫、音樂、詩歌、饒舌、小說、非小說、短篇故事、戲劇、哲學..等，都可以為創造力提供火花。以廣泛的影響力對你的工作進行異花授粉(原文:cross pollination，藉由風或昆蟲從別的花獲得繁衍的花粉)，並觀察你的創造力增長。

Tip No. 63: Write it all down while the coffee is still telling you you’re mighty. Reread after you’ve turned back into Dr. Banner (yes he’s a genius, but not as self-confident in that condition). That buzz is so valuable but needs editing.
在咖啡發揮效果告訴你”你超棒”的時期，把所有想法寫下來。當你回復成原本的自我 (原文: Dr. Banner，也就是尚未變身成綠巨人浩克的班納博士，是個缺乏自信的天才)時，重讀一次剛才的寫作。思緒激昂(原文:buzz，也有微醺、很鏘的意思)很珍貴，但需要編輯。

GARY'S FAVORITES
Gary(原作者)的最愛
Tip No. 90: After a Good Set, Brainstorm
You just had a great set. Instead of celebrating, use that hour or so after when the synapses are still firing and your confidence is soaring to voice record or write down the ideas that pop up during that especially fertile creative time.
如果你剛完成一場精采的表演，不用太早慶祝，要在大腦突觸仍在觸發、信心爆發、靈感特別豐腴的創作時間裡，把突然出現的想法錄音或寫下，再多花一個小時左右的時間繼續創作吧。

Gary’s thoughts on Tip No. 90: Huge help in making jokes that work longer and coming up with tangents and inspired ideas.
Gary對此建議的想法: 這建議在創作笑話的過程中提供巨大幫助，並提供變化和啟發性的想法。

Tip No. 92: Notice where you do your best thinking. The shower? Running? Listening to music? Not listening to music? Driving? Walking? Make sure to put yourself in the places where you’re doing your best thinking as frequently as possible.
你有注意過你在哪個’場景最能好好思考嗎。沐浴時？跑步時？聽音樂時？不聽音樂時？開車時?走路時？請盡量把自己放在最適合思考的場域。

Tip No. 132: I think you can limit frustration and discouragement by writing just a page on a new premise before trying it out onstage. See if there’s anything there before you spend a day on a new joke. But if you’re truly excited by the new idea, keep going!
我認為你可以在上台試笑話之前，先寫一頁的新前提，這可以限制你的挫敗感和沮喪感。在你花一整天開發新笑話之前，先研究前提是否可挖掘。但是，如果你真心對這個新點子感到興奮，那就放手去做吧!

Tip No. 143: Listen to strangers’ conversations. (I tell myself it’s not impolite if they’re being super-loud.) I got “How Dottie is that?” when a supercilious woman named Jodi bragged “How Jodi is that?” “So Jodi,” her friend replied.
偷聽陌生人的對談(我都告訴自己偷聽並不是沒禮貌的行徑，是他們講話太大聲了)。我有一次聽到一個名叫Jodi的膚淺女人吹噓"How Jodi is that?"，她朋友回覆:"So Jodi"，我因此想出了我的 “How Dottie is that?” 笑話。

Tip No. 157: Need new joke ideas? Be sensitive. If you’re uncomfortable with that word, use “irritable” (or grow up). A lot of good comedy comes from reaction to injustice or discomfort large and small, which requires being hypersensitive to those feelings.
需要新的笑話創意嗎？保持敏感。如果你對這個詞不滿意，請使用“煩躁”(或成長)。 許多優秀喜劇源自於對不平等或不適的大大小小的反應，產生這些感覺都需要保持敏感。

Tip No. 217: “All art is autobiographical. The pearl is the oyster’s autobiography.” — Federico Fellini. Purposefully mine your personal history for your act. Your life is a wellspring. Dig deep.
Federico Fellini說過:“所有藝術都是自傳。珍珠是牡蠣的自傳。”有目的得挖掘你的個人經歷，以作為你的演出。你的生活是靈感之源。請深入挖掘。

Tip No. 241: Many of your favorite writers include the same themes/subjects/objects/interests repeatedly in their work. Don’t be afraid to return again and again to your passions and obsessions to explore and expound.
你最愛的許多作家，都會在他們的作品裡重複探討相同的主題/目標/對象/興趣。不要害怕在你的熱情和沉迷之處，一次又一次得重複探索和闡述。

Tip No. 285: Explore unusual angles in a joke. Example: Examine things from the POV of a child or an Expert. My man Jimmy P and I still laugh over his “Martian response to high school football practice: Why are the hard-heads (players) taking orders from the small soft-heads (coach)?”
在笑話中探索不尋常的觀點。例如：從孩子或專家的視角觀看事物。我和我的兄弟Jimmy P仍會為他的笑話大笑:“火星人對高中足球訓練的反應：為什麼硬頭(球員)會從小型軟頭(教練)那裡得到命令？”

Tip No. 297: One of the miracles of comedy is that you can get redemption for suffering, small and large, by making something funny with it. When you are ready, try to write something funny about your mistakes, setbacks, or even tragedies.
喜劇的奇蹟之一是，藉由使事情變得有趣，你可以從大大小小的苦難中得到救贖。 當你準備就緒時，請嘗試寫一些有關你的錯誤、挫折甚至悲劇的有趣訊息。

Tip No. 298: Skim your life for the unusual events and activities that you can’t believe you were a part of or that people can’t believe you were a part of. Then write about it! Back row No. 93 MULLET:
No. 93後衛MULLET: “瀏覽你一生經歷過的、你或別人不敢相信你參與其中的奇特事件和活動。然後把它寫下來吧!“

Tip No. 310: When it comes to solving the puzzles that are our jokes, draw on every area of knowledge, expertise, and talent. It’s so gratifying to use a fact, a lesson, or a memory from elementary school, high school, or elsewhere to fill in the joke.
在解決我們玩笑的難關時，請利用各個領域的常識、專業知識和才能。用小學、高中或其他地方的事實、課業或回憶來充實笑話，會非常令人滿足。

Tip No. 311: Some of your best ideas will come to you in the shower. There’s science behind why it happens. Get a shower notepad if you have trouble remembering your ideas. Don’t listen to music. Listen to your thoughts. Ruminate on tonight’s set or a new joke.
洗澡時，你可能想到一些最好的點子。這現象的發生原因有科學依據。如果你難以記住自己的想法，請準備淋浴記事本。不要聽音樂。聽你的想法。用今晚的場景或一個新的笑話來反思。

Tip No. 313: Try teaching or informing the audience about something through some of your jokes. We love to learn while being entertained and vice versa. You have knowledge? Put it in your act! Just make sure it’s funny.
試試看通過講笑話來教導或告知聽眾新知識吧。我們喜歡在娛樂的同時學習，反之亦然。你有新知識嗎？把它放在你的演出！只要確保它很有趣就行。

Tip No. 327: Going home for Thanksgiving? Take copious notes! Your family is unique. Being reminded of the dynamics and adding new memories will be great resources for your act. “Family isn’t a word. It’s a sentence.”
逢年過節你會回家和家人團聚嗎？做大量筆記！你的家人是獨一無二的。記住動態場景並添加新的記憶，這會是你表演的寶貴資源。“家庭不是一個詞。 而是一個句子。”

Tip No. 331: There are great stories from our lives that we’re not able to translate into stand-up. Don’t throw them out. Collect those stories in a file for radio and TV and other interview situations.
我們生活中有許多很棒的故事，但我們無法將其轉化為脫口秀。可是不要把它們丟掉。要將這些故事收集在資料夾裡，以後在進行廣播和電視或採訪時可能用的到。

Tip No. 340: Volunteer! Especially if you don’t have a day job. There are so many opportunities to help. You will do good and have something new to write about. In NYC we have New York Cares. One year we decorated an elementary school for Halloween.
如果你沒有正職工作，當志工吧！你會有很多機會能幫助別人。你會做得很好，並有新的事情能寫。在紐約，我們設有紐約關懷中心。今年我們為萬聖節裝飾了一所小學。

Tip No. 358: I have recently started audio recording all notes sessions (for projects), and next time I pitch jokes with a friend I will record that too. It’s very helpful. You will be surprised at what you forgot when you listen back. Ask permission first.
我最近開始錄製所有筆記會話(用於專案)的錄音檔，並且下次我與朋友開玩笑時，我也會錄音。這非常有幫助。當你回聽時，你會驚訝於你忘記了什麼。但錄音前請先徵得許可。

Tip No. 360: Spending holidays with kids? Pay attention to them. Listen to them. Take note and embrace their curiosity and enthusiasm within your writing. (Also avoid the “kids these days” writing. It’s lazy.) Merry Christmas from your second favorite long-haired Jew.
和孩子一起度假嗎？注意觀察他們。聽他們說話。寫下你觀察到的東西並注意，並在寫作中懷抱孩子們的好奇心和熱情。(不要流水帳的寫“現在的小屁孩都如何如何”。這很懶。)你第二喜歡的長髮猶太叔叔在此祝你聖誕快樂(註，原作Gary是猶太人)。

a Kyle Le doc.
Click Show More for More Info about Giap and this video.
Subscribe Now for MORE Videos: https://goo.gl/tMnTmX

Giap's story is similar to many Viet kieu and Vietnamese overseas abroad. The resilience of the refugee immigration struggle combined with the eventual return home to support family and friends back in the motherland is something that is still on going today. It's an important historical and present sociological aspect of the Vietnamese diaspora that is seldom discussed even though it's apparent i almost every household past or present. Thank you to Giap for sharing his story. If anyone else wants their story told and our schedule aligns, then maybe it'll happen. Heck, Giap just reached out to me one day and I just came over to his house not even knowing a thing. And it turned out to be a great story, but also a great opportunity to share such a life.

Thanks to Giap for the chance to create this video and the main reason why I went back to Vietnam during the summer. When I left in March, I had no plans at all to return during the summer, but meeting him and his enthusiasm for sharing the Vietnamese diaspora and culture and his story made the decision a lot easier. Because of Giap, we have all of these Vietnam videos that I've released in the last few weeks and the next few weeks. Thank you Giap. Meeting one person can definitely change the course of our life. Who knows what's next?

For more videos:
https://youtu.be/pmt6Y9fG3I8 Canadian chocolate maker in VN
https://youtu.be/6rdiRYsswCk A motorbike valet's dreams
https://youtu.be/XRW0pOgoM0I Japanese girl speaks Vietnamese
https://youtu.be/DEK90AxcVgg Senegal Viet man update!
https://youtu.be/oCI81qBKLRM Everyone's speaking Vietnamese
https://youtu.be/f7RVANi1rv0 Vietnamese Man in Senegal, Africa

Sign Up for Exclusive Content and to Keep in touch with me! https://madmimi.com/signups/172747/join

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Me: I'm Kyle Le and I used to live, travel, and eat in Vietnam and many Asian countries. I'm passionate about making videos and sharing modern Asia to the world. I've traveled everywhere in Vietnam, from Hanoi to Saigon - Far North, Central Highlands, Islands, and Deep Mekong Delta - I've visited there. In addition to 15+ countries from Indonesia to Thailand to Singapore, you'll find all of my food, tourist attractions, and daily life experiences discovering my roots in the motherland on this amazing journey right on this channel. So be sure to subscribe- there's new videos all the time and connect with me on social media below so you don't miss any adventures.
----------------------------------------­-----------------------
Like: Facebook: http://www.fb.com/KyleLe.net
Follow: Instagram and Snapchat @KyleLeDotNet

Filmed and Edited by Kyle Le
Music mixed by Antti Luode.
Filmed with a Panasonic G7 14-140mm. 15mm
Samsung S7 Zhiyun Smooth Q, DJI Mavic
Audio from a Shure VP38F, RodeLink

Locations: Saigon, Quang Ninh,

Allen Iverson scored 17 points in the first quarter against the Orlando Magic. He barely slowed down thereafter.

Iverson finished with a career- and NBA season-high 60 points as the Philadelphia 76ers posted a 112-99 triumph over the Magic, who lost for the 14th time in 17 road games.

Iverson became the 18th different player to score 60 points in a game. The last to do so was Tracy McGrady, who had 62 for Orlando against Washington last March 10.

"I've never witnessed a performance like this in person," Philadelphia coach Jim O'Brien said. "This is the greatest performance that I've ever witnessed. I think we are witnessing one of the great careers in the NBA, put on by one of the most talented, tough and big-hearted guys that you'll ever see on the basketball court.

"I think we should all enjoy this while Allen is still in the NBA. I sure am enjoying coaching him."

A three-time scoring champ who entered this one leading the league at 29.0 points per game, including two with at least 50, Iverson staked the 76ers to a 31-22 edge after one quarter. He added 12 points in the second period to help open a 62-44 cushion at the break.

"I just felt that I was in real good rhythm," Iverson said. "The craziest thing about it, it wasn't a jump-shooting rhythm. It was just constantly attacking all night long. That's what I did and I guess that's why I went to the free-throw line as much as I did."

After Orlando reduced a 25-point third-quarter deficit to 82-71 on a jumper by Pat Garrity with six seconds left in the period, Iverson nailed a buzzer-beating 3-pointer to give him 40 points entering the fourth. He has six 40-point games this season and 56 in his career.

"I didn't settle for jump shots," Iverson said. "(Orlando) decided to play me one-on-one during the game and I just made them pay for it. I asked them, 'When are you going to trap me?' and they had a blank look on their faces and didn't answer. I assumed that they didn't know what to do at that point."

Iverson, who made 17-of-36 shots and 24-of-27 free throws, reached 50 points when he sank the first of a pair of free throws with 5:27 left. He matched his previous career high of 58 points - set vs. Houston on January 17, 2002 - with two free throws with 2:53 remaining, then reached the 60-point threshold on another pair from the line with 1:07 to play.

"It feels good right now," Iverson said. "Just knowing that we won the basketball game is the most important thing. I scored a career high and we won the game, that's how you draw it up in your dreams."

"He put relentless pressure on our defense, and then when he wasn't shooting free throws, he did hit some baskets," Orlando coach Johnny Davis said. "We tried to make a game of it late, but Iverson for sure controlled the game tonight. When we made a stretch run at him, he took over again, and made the baskets they had to have to keep their momentum going."

Iverson also became just the second player in franchise history to score 60 points in a game. The other was Wilt Chamberlain, who did it three times with the team. The last time was on December 16, 1967, when he scored 68 vs. Chicago.

"When you talk to me and mention Wilt Chamberlain in the sentence with me, I don't have any more words after that," Iverson said. "You mention somebody who is six feet, 165 pounds soaking wet and somebody seven some feet. That says a lot about the coaches that I've had in my career, the teammates that I've played with, and the family and friends that helped me get to this point. It's a tribute to the people that helped me get here and believed in me."

Steve Francis collected 32 points, 13 rebounds and eight assists for Orlando, which beat Philadelphia on January 22, 115-111, overcoming 38 points by Iverson.