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”

本篇文章是個技術分享文，Netflix 分享內部過去四年來是如何打造一個分散式的 Tracing System。
Netflix 的串流服務想必大家都很熟悉，但是作為服務提供者來說，要如何維運這套分散式的串流服務就沒有這麼簡單。

舉例來說，當一個特定的使用者回報其服務有問題時，內部的系統要如何把下列資訊給全部串接起來組合出一個可以讓內部工程人員除錯的機制
1. Streaming Session
2. 微服務之間的流量
3. CDN 的處理

對使用者來說就是串流有問題，但是背後的網路封包實際上經過哪些 app，走過哪些節點，踏過哪些機房都是很複雜的事情，不把這些全部資訊都組合起來則非常困難除錯。

Netflix 決定要針對這個問題打造一個分散式的 Tracing 平台，而那時還沒有這麼多如 Opentracing, Zipkin, Jaeger 等相關的開源專案可以用，所以 Netflix 必須要自己去打造這套系統。
這套系統的組成跟現今常見的架構雷同，Application 本身要透過 Library 來產生出 Tracing 需要的資料，接者透過一套串流處理將資料給傳送到後端的儲存空間，最後則是由UI等相關服務來讀取資料方便使用

本篇文章基於這種架構下去探討 Netflix 的心路歷程，其中幾個比較有趣的問題這邊列出來
1. Tracing 資料的取樣該如何設計，過於頻繁會造成資料空間使用過量，過於稀少則會造成資料不夠完整，這部分 Netflix 採用基於 hybrid head-based 的取樣方式，針對特定區間採用 100% 的取樣方式，而其餘則是根據設定來隨機取樣
2. 資料儲存的部分則是有非常豐富的變化歷史，早期使用 ElasticSearch 後來對其 R/W 的效能感到不滿而輾轉到使用 Cassandra，而 Cassandra 最初使用 AWS 的 SSD 做為底層應用，後來改轉使用 EBS 並且搭配資料壓縮與一些過濾機制， 2021 決定要引入 Storage Gateway 的方式來處理

儲存方面幾乎是每年都在改善與改進，真的要遇到問題才有辦法針對問題下藥，這也是架構方面很難一口氣做到最好，隨者業務與流量擴大，很多現有的架構可能都需要打掉重來才有辦法應付

全文不算太短，但是推薦有興趣的人可以閱讀全文來看看 Netflix 是如何打造這套系統的

https://netflixtechblog.com/building-netflixs-distributed-tracing-infrastructure-bb856c319304

【這是一篇關於我經營寫點科普的想法】

「寫點科普」是我從大學尾聲開始經營的網誌，我放在網誌和粉專上對「寫點科普」營運宗旨的開篇介紹就是✍️產業史+探究精神✍️了解各產業和金融經濟概念，是我認為生而為人的基本知識

簡單來說就是我認為一個現代人需要吸收的新知太多，金融財報美學設計技術名詞週遭產業...通通都要懂，最好的做法就是建立一套自己去看事情的研究體系，我的網誌也是一直在推廣這個想法並用我自己的文章架構來做示意（最一開始提出問題、後續慢慢解答）

目前網誌寫到的產業我自己一開始都不懂，但我覺得我自己應該要懂！所以從零到一研究完之後發表出來提供給其他同樣是小白的讀者，只要懂提出問題和Problem Solving什麼領域都可以研究，這是我也是寫「科普」的核心

至今還是很多讀者以為「寫點科普」是半導體專門戶，看我寫別的主題就說欸是不是不務正業... 沒有我還曾經寫過時尚產業！字型學！電腦科學演進！還有1980年代開始的家機史還有雷亞CEO專訪文！寫過特斯拉財報分析！我今天無聊看了一下網站最熱門的Top 10文章，竟然還包括我寫過的一篇UI設計流程，足足害我驚愕了一陣🤣

看起來戰線開很廣，但我寫這些其實也不是隨便挑主題。我的老讀者一定都知道我最早期有設定「主題線」的習慣，我過往的文章也都是按照專題形式來進行，包括晶圓代工系列、財經系列、訪問雷亞CEO的遊戲產業專題等等

可以參考我放在網誌總覽的「寫點科普使用手冊」(如圖)
：https://kopu.chat/2017/04/29/kopuchat/

這是一個我大學時期就想建立的知識樹，通通都是由0到1：

👉哲學、電腦科學、硬體、通訊/網路
👉應用 / 設計
👉金融 / 經濟

有看過我所有文章的話，主題也通通都是「從零到一，帶你了解什麼是時尚設計/什麼是股市/什麼是經濟學/什麼是晶圓代工/什麼是雲端運算/什麼是人工智慧...」

龐大到我覺得我可能得都花一輩子的時間在上面慢慢的拓建這樣的知識樹🤣自從取了「寫點科普」這四字做為網誌名稱後，一直想著：要好好背負這個名號貫徹始終科普的理念

但老實說我這種營運模式有一個很大的缺點在於沒辦法跟風，我自己覺得很重要而寫出來但並不一定搭上對的Timing，如果我想要開設的主題沒有搭上新聞時事的話點閱率真的非常低，也有聽到評論是只有那種真的是我核心粉絲、喜歡我每一篇文的讀者才會想看吧（其實我去年底有寫了一篇犯罪心理學的科普，但後來想到：最近沒什麼大事，新讀者可能以為我是寫科技金融的，發這個感覺也超怪😂這裡偷打預防針是我過幾天還是決定會發布的lol）

如果有從最一開始就Follow我的骨灰級讀者，應該有發現從2018年底開始到2019年所出現的文章，我再也沒有寫過科普專題，直接變成市場時事分析，差不多形同放棄科普這個概念；但最近又有重新想要規劃專題科普的想法了。

我最近為什麼一直開Clubhouse房間？語音的好處就是腦袋有很多的想法可以用超低成本的方式直接講出來；文字一大問題就是要花時間濃縮成語句寫下來、找內文圖片、想標題什麼的。

最近想說透過這個機會，重新梳理一下如何更彰顯出「主題線」這個概念。今年如果有跟著我在聽Clubhouse場次、或看我後續發布在粉專或網誌上的Takeways的同伴們不知道有沒有發現我主軸也是默默地在做鋪陳，成為「美商SaaS公司專題」（可能只有我自己知道😅）：

場次一：SaaS公司收入結構該怎麼分析？關鍵指標有哪些？

有了這個預先的概念跟討論後，接下來我開的討論也都圍繞在這上面

場次二：特斯拉買Bitcoin營運分析
場次三：2021社交App市場變化趨勢
場次四：CDN邊緣運算獨角獸Cloudflare/Fastly點評
✊✊✊場次五：行動數位廣告經濟（今晚十點鐘喔👋）
場次六：2/21，AWS/Azure/GCP營運策略討論
場次七：2/24，Google Q4財報分析

大概全世界只有我自己知道我在做這個鋪陳🤣🤣🤣抱歉沒特別出來說明！

另外為什麼不開 Podcast 的原因是「寫點科普」的經營方向不是股票投資而是產業介紹（牽涉的範圍很廣，財報/產業動向/技術名詞/設計...全方位涉及）所以要盡量去除個人主觀意見讓它具備專業知識性，最好還是有該產業的專家在場；但老實說我認識的朋友不是很多，全靠個人研究花超級多時間蒐集資料跟做驗證，所以現在CH的好處是我只要有一個大概的想法就可以丟出來討論請專家上來一起聊。這陣子透過Clubhouse也認識到了很多強者，之後打算開Podcast邀相關背景的CO-Host過來看看（或也會徵求讀者報名參加哈哈）

總而言之分享了一些關於我在怎麼經營的想法，出現在寫點科普上的主題是只要需要動腦想的邏輯問題，那就什麼都會有😏只是我個人能力比較強的還是財務相關所以這方面當然會最多內容、切入產業分析的視角也常常會是這個，也請讀者多見諒啦！

之後CH內容也會盡量整理並發布在FB/IG/Blog上面，手機中沒有CH的讀者可以參考這些、或等我之後規畫開設Podcast了💕

想瘦腿？卻遲遲沒有成效？
找對方向妳一定要知道的事....

認同的話別忘了分享給有需要的朋友，破除迷思

✨訂閱我的頻道 https://goo.gl/cJUSVh
✨ Instagram 👉🏻https://goo.gl/m5Ro8b
 --------------------------------------
訓練系列
✨居家燃脂訓練 https://youtu.be/6yd0_6UFhuA
✨女生健身疑問 https://youtu.be/tQjvdMAsCcY
✨炸爆三角肌（新手篇） https://youtu.be/WHwxC4W4AmI
✨臀練不翹嗎？ https://youtu.be/g9OGUfTRURQ
各種訓練影片 https://lihi.cc/008sQ
———————————————————
✨ 飲食菜單
👉🏻https://ashleexiu.com/diet/

✨ 打造易瘦體質-系統化菜單
👉🏻https://ashleexiu.com/training

✨ 翹臀心機-升級臀部訓練
👉🏻https://gluteband.ashlee.click
--------------------------------------
常用的營養品
✨【MYPROTEIN】http://bit.ly/Ashleexiu
✨【專屬6折碼】👉🏻MYPASHLEE
-------------------------------
常用的拉力帶
✨【VERSA GRIPPS】https://www.versagripps.tw/
✨【折扣碼】👉🏻Ashlee
-------------------------------
高蛋白健身魚
✨【POSEIDON】https://www.poseidonfh.com
✨【折扣碼】👉🏻Ashlee
--------------------------------------
資料來源
http://www.womenfitness.net/img2015/artimg/oct/Calf-Muscles.jpg
https://cdn-ami-drupal.heartyhosting.com/sites/muscleandfitness.com/files/styles/full_node_image_1090x614/public/Skinny%20Legs%202.jpg?itok=lJVpqlCp
http://s2.fafa01.com/uploads/be/3/336425/1505665339689.jpg https://media.wired.com/photos/5a020652bb1c7d64438406e3/master/w_1164,c_limit/marathon-TA.jpg
https://www.shape.com/sites/shape.com/files/styles/story_detail/public/story/female-marathon-runner-stretching-road_0.jpg?itok=gGKyk8py
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UNp_yjcLiBc/maxresdefault.jpg
https://www.thewomanonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/beautiful-calves.jpg
https://z9s1325dh5qyujfxp62w1g3o-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/3-Golden-Rules-Image-2.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9CAOfYWKsik/maxresdefault.jpg
https://thefitfrog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/her-calves-muscle-woman-girl-legs-calf-heels-sexy-hot-nylon-athletic-shapely-06.jpg
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/551902129308791798/visual-search/?x=16&y=12&w=507&h=379
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/172684966941938631/visual-search/?x=16&y=11&w=530&h=362
https://www.google.com/search?q=fat+bone+x+ray&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CQF6QLlBVMlgIjjDi6WYDiTAq8DKuDt4UdTBAKV8a3j2Yh73xSd9g8Tp94SNMPvTfkA6bOCsr4FcRHwmo1f_1fL4TrCoSCcOLpZgOJMCrEXIueR3hIkMvKhIJwMq4O3hR1MER-5iKuZPfOPcqEgkApXxrePZiHhF-Gm-Fhv80TioSCffFJ32DxOn3EQF3hXBojbf3KhIJhI0w-9N-QDoR-5iKuZPfOPcqEgls4KyvgVxEfBEB4ipKOHb-2ioSCSajV_198vhOsEcmrPiCC5gpQ&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZw5eX0O_fAhXKE7wKHQG8CAoQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1955&bih=913&dpr=2#imgrc=98UnfYPE6fe7iM:
https://rugbystrengthcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/cyclists.jpg
https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/11858471_f520.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM1JPtF_vdA&t=
https://wonjinbeauty.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/eedc2-calfreduction.png?w=640&h=216&zoom=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fD2TSL2s7I&t=
https://image.pttnews.cc/2018/05/22/5e85732457/108c06be9eb72849480581ae2e7c5eeb.jpg?redirect=true
--------------------------------------
原文字幕
嗨大家好我是Ashlee
今天想要跟大家聊聊小腿
你在意自己小腿的形狀嗎
不時的我會收到一些女孩的訊息
跑步會讓我蘿蔔腿嗎？
我做完有氧機小腿變粗了怎麼辦？
其實這部份有很大的誤會
跑步或有氧機
並不是造成你小腿粗大的原因
像我在走路跑步騎單車
這類的有氧運動的時候
我們使用的是慢肌纖維
他是訓練肌耐力的
我們看跑者
馬拉松運動員
他們的腿不算粗大吧
如果走路跑步騎單車等
這類的有氧運動會造成小腿粗壯的話
那他們的腿應該不是長這樣
那為什麼做完有氧運動之後小腿變粗了呢
這只是在運動過程中肌肉遭到破壞
造成的短暫充血腫脹
幾個小時內就會恢復了
隨著肌肉的恢復
身體也會創造新的肌纖維
但在低強度有氧的前提下
這些新創建的肌纖維
不太可能會增加你肌肉的圍度
而是讓你有更緊實的小腿線條
相對的
短跑選手 滑冰運動員
他們就會有比較粗壯的肌肉
這張圖呢
左邊是馬拉松跑者
右邊是短跑選手
有沒有看到短跑選手
他是相對比較壯的
因為短跑這樣的爆發性運動
他會增加更多的快肌纖維
而像健美運動員
他必須非常努力的進行力量訓練
並且要漸進式超負荷
還要嚴格控制他的飲食
他才會有精緻跟扎實的肌肉線條
也有人問
我骨架很大有辦法瘦腿嗎？
讓我們來看看這九百磅的男子
他的骨架有比較大嗎？
其實大多時候我們誤以為的骨架大
都是脂肪惹的禍
那到底為什麼小腿會粗呢？
影響小腿形狀的因素有小腿的長度
也就是你小腿的骨骼的長度
跟你的肌肉形狀
還有你脂肪的分佈
像是小腿骨比較長的人
他的視覺效果看起來就會比較修長
再來就是肌肉的位置
追求壯碩小腿的健美運動員
如果他的小腿肌的位置
是長比較高的話
視覺方面相對就會比較吃虧
脂肪分佈的話
你的脂肪最喜歡長在哪邊
哪邊的脂肪最難消
這個也是基因造就的
以上呢都是無法改變的天生基因
但是也不要太灰心
我們現在就來討論一下
可以靠後天改善的方法
一 減脂
雖然減脂無法保證你要減掉的脂肪
剛好就是你小腿肚上面的脂肪
不過我們可以試試Jeff Nippard說的
可能的局部減脂方式
方法就是在做完
你希望減脂的部位的力量訓練之後
馬上去做低強度的有氧
第二個 修正你的走路姿勢
我們先來看看這張圖
雖然這張圖是來自韓國整形的網站
但是我們可以看出有各種小腿
各種不同的形狀
以下也開放留言你的小腿是屬於幾號腿
那我這邊看呢
我覺得一號二號腿
他們是習慣性的內八或外八
施力不均導致肌肉發展也不均勻
那三號腿呢
肯定是很努力鍛鍊小腿的運動員
四號腿應該就是很勻穪很漂亮的腿
五號腿呢
就是前面提到的
脂肪惹的禍
看到這邊我們會知道
不同的發力方式
不同的走路方式
甚至是穿高跟鞋
都會影響你小腿的線條
那到底該怎麼走路呢
我們來看看物理治療師怎麼說
So your hips really need to do their job
Otherwise your knees
Your ankles have more stress
It's the back leg to push
Not the front leg to lead
他建議我們要臀肌出來上班
而不是用你的前腳出力去走路
手跟核心要隨著髖關節旋轉擺動
避免用前腿帶動整個身體往前
你現在站起來
試著走幾步路看看
仔細觀察你的身體
如果你是習慣性地
用前腿去帶動整個身體的話呢
建議你可以多加強你的核心
跟臀肌的力量
正確的走路步伐
不但可以讓你的小腿更漂亮
也可以讓你避免傷害
第三點 運動
小腿肌分為腓腸肌跟比目魚肌
如果你希望自己的小腿
可以修長一點的話
你可以多做坐姿提踵的動作
去訓練比目魚肌
比目魚肌呢大部分是由慢肌纖維組成
對肌肥大的成長潛力相對比較弱
所以大家不用擔心
不用擔心你練一練就變蘿蔔腿
我自己訓練過幾個月的小腿經驗是
我的小腿圍度完全沒有改變
我每個星期都有做紀錄
但是視覺效果上面看起來是更云穪的
我想是因為小腿他本身
就是一個我們使用頻繁的肌肉
每天都要使用
每天都要走路
所以導致他的成長幅度很有限
加上我都是在我練完腿結束之後
多做個幾組小腿的動作
並非像那種
追求小腿肌碩大的
健美運動員的狂操狂練
所以外觀上並沒有很明顯的改變
不過當時確實有幫助到我的深蹲表現
那如果你是男生
你嚮往那種粗壯的小腿的話呢
不但訓練比目魚肌
腓腸肌更是不能錯過
腓腸肌的鍛鍊呢
主要就是站姿的提踵
第四點 拉筋
可以多做拉伸小腿肌肉的動作
讓緊繃的肌肉放鬆
不要結成一丸
像以前就會有人說
你的小腿結成一丸
就是因為你沒有放鬆
我覺得他講的對一半
因為你今天小腿肌長那樣
並不是因為你沒有拉筋而造就的
但是拉筋他確實多少是有幫助的
他可以讓你的肌肉拉長
那除了做這種拉伸的動作呢
我自己也會喜歡用滾輪
筋膜放鬆的方式去放鬆我的小腿肌
再來就是按摩
也會對放鬆拉長肌肉很有幫助
其實這集小腿的影片我想要做很久了
但是一直被其他的影片耽擱
希望這集內容對你有幫助
也歡迎你分享給
你有小腿困擾的朋友們
喜歡的話呢記得幫我點個讚
然後想要看更多影片
別忘了訂閱 訂閱
加上小鈴鐺
應該是這個位置吧
好 我們下次見
Peace