The 17th Gyalwang Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a monk. He heads the Karma Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism, one of the four great lineages, and he was enthroned as a child. In 2019 a former nun named Vikki Hui Xin Han filed a family claim against him in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The judgment that followed, Han v. Dorje, 2021 BCSC 939, is a narrow procedural ruling. It decides only whether she may amend her pleadings. It decides nothing about what happened. But in reaching that narrow decision, Master Elwood set out the money.

Through third parties, across 2018, roughly £496,000 moved from the Karmapa to Vikki Han. Fifty thousand Canadian dollars for the birth and postpartum care at a facility in Seattle. Three hundred thousand for the child's first year. Four hundred thousand US dollars for a home — Han bought a condominium in Richmond, British Columbia. And twenty thousand US dollars for a wedding ring, after she wrote to him that even if they could not marry, he must buy her one.

He had told her he was not ready to marry. On 17 September 2018 he wrote: "Taking care of her and you are my duty for life."

The context of the payments is contested. Dorje's position, recorded at paragraph 4, is that he gave emotional and financial support for the benefit of the child he was told was his. Han's position is that a relationship existed. Her account of how it began — a sexual assault in her room at a New York monastery in October 2017 — is an allegation, presumed true for the purposes of the amendment application and, as the court expressly stated at paragraph 6, untested in any court. The Master did not read Dorje's responding affidavit. He did not have to.

What the Master did say, at paragraph 55, is that a trial judge might read the money as something more than child support: as a down payment on a promise of continued support, in circumstances where a man could not commit physically.

The trial was listed for twenty-five days. Most witnesses live abroad. Hundreds of pages of Mandarin awaited translation, at an estimated 150 days' work.

Four questions

1. Where did the money come from? The judgment records transfers made "through various third parties" but names no source. A monk of the Kagyu lineage holds no personal fortune in the ordinary sense. The funds available to a high lama flow through monasteries, trusts and charitable foundations across several jurisdictions. Which accounts were drawn on, and under what authority?
2. Who knew? Paragraph 51(f) states there is no allegation that Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers. Yet transfers of this size do not move without administrators, signatories, intermediaries. Someone processed them. Who, and what were they told?
3. What did the donors think they were funding? The Karma Kagyu is sustained by lay offerings from Asia, Europe and North America. If institutional money paid for a Richmond condominium and a wedding ring, the people who gave it have a legitimate interest in knowing. If it was private money, that too can be stated plainly.
4. What happened to the case? The 2021 judgment adjourned trial to April 2022 and ordered Han to provide particulars within twenty-one days. The public record of what followed — settlement, judgment, discontinuance — is not in this document.

Source: Supreme Court of British Columbia (2021) Han v. Dorje, 2021 BCSC 939, Docket E191921, Vancouver Registry, 17 May 2021 (corrected 19 May 2021), per Master Elwood. Sterling figures converted at mid-market rates.

Between: Vikki Hui Xin Han Claimant And Ogyen Trinley Dorje Respondent

Corrected Judgment:  The text of this Judgment was
corrected on May 19, 2021

 Before: Master Elwood

Place and Date of Hearing:	Vancouver, B.C. April 15, 2021
Place and Date of Judgment:	Vancouver, B.C. May 17, 2021

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), 1996 CanLII 3033 (BC CA), 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), 1980 CanLII 1537 (ON HCJ), 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”

I am trying to find instances where a Buddhist centre, teacher or organisation said something publicly about the allegations of sexual misconduct against the 17th Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorje — a statement, a talk, a letter to members, a discussion evening, anything on the record.

The facts as far as I can establish them: allegations from three separate women have been reported in the media. One woman brought legal action seeking child support; that case was reportedly settled out of court. The Karmapa has not publicly denied the allegations, and no independent investigation has taken place. I take no position on whether the allegations are true. Nor does the site I found this through, Healing Our Sanghas, which states that it has no position on the truth or falsity of the allegations.

What I want to know: where a community did address it, what did that look like, and did it help?

1. Did your centre or teacher say anything on the record? What form did it take?
2. If they did, how was it received — did it settle people or divide them?
3. Are there comparable cases in other traditions where leadership handled it well, and what did they do?
4. For anyone who raised it themselves: what response did you get?

Has anyone here come across Healing Our Sanghas?

A site called Healing Our Sanghas (healingoursanghas.com) documents the effect on Karma Kagyu communities of the allegations of sexual misconduct against the 17th Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, and of the silence that followed them.

Facts as the site states them: allegations from three separate women have been reported in the media. One woman brought legal action seeking child support. The case was reportedly settled out of court. The Karmapa has not publicly denied the allegations. There has been no independent investigation. The site takes no position on whether the allegations are true, and neither does this post.

It was set up by anonymous practitioners from various Karma Kagyu centres — lay and monastic, some having completed the three-year retreat — working with Ann Gleig (University of Central Florida) and Amy Langenberg (Eckerd College) of the Religion and Sexual Abuse Project. It hosts an ArcGIS StoryMap where people record, anonymously, how the allegations and the silence affected them.

Questions:

1. Have your centres discussed this openly, or is the subject closed?
2. Where a lineage head is involved and no independent investigation exists, what should a sangha reasonably do?
3. Does anonymous testimony of this kind help a community, or does it entrench the split?
4. Are there precedents — other traditions, other lineages — where a community handled comparable allegations well?

We tend to scrutinize Buddhist teachers and overlook the people who control access to them, such as assistants, administrators, translators, attendants, resident staff, and trusted intermediaries.

These people can occupy an unusually powerful position. They may control communication with the teacher, decide what information reaches them, manage relationships with students, handle donations or gifts, organize retreats, and become the informal gatekeepers of an entire community. Yet they may have little formal accountability and can operate almost invisibly.

Most guru's staff are simply doing their job but proximity to spiritual authority is itself a form of power, and Buddhist communities should treat it that way.

Western converts in particular should be careful about assuming that someone is trustworthy simply because they are close to revered lamas, wear Dharma clothing, speak Tibetan, have the teacher's confidence, or have been around the teacher or organization for years.

Look for ordinary-world safeguards such as:

role transparency, clear boundaries, financial accountability, independent channels for complaints, protection against retaliation, and the ability to communicate directly with leadership when something serious happens.

Most importantly: DON'T CONFUSE SOMEONE'S ACCESS OR PROXIMITY TO TEACHERS WITH VIRTUE.

Someone can be logistically trusted by a lama and still behave badly behind the teacher's back. Someone can be indispensable to an organization and still require scrutiny, particularly when they are competant. Loyalty to a teacher or a tradition should never require loyalty to every person surrounding them.

We should also be aware of less obvious forms of power and status accumulation:

invoking proximity to realized masters to establish authority, cultivating unusually dependent or loyal relationships with students, positioning oneself as a gatekeeper to the teacher, gathering followers or information around oneself, triangulating people against one another, selectively controlling what reaches leadership, using privileged access as a status credential, or implying that disagreement with oneself constitutes disagreement with the teacher or lineage. Collectively, covert power and status seeking behavior can create a parallel power structure around the person who controls access.

https://preview.redd.it/q00uvjbkauih1.png?width=768&format=png&auto=webp&s=3326be25822cd3b918e69641631b16840fef43d7

Does anyone know what was Lama Zangmo's testimony at Claire Rodway's death inquest?

https://preview.redd.it/1a67oz5s9uih1.png?width=853&format=png&auto=webp&s=9eef701ae9aea76871d816dcb3dee20badb8c3c6

Claire Rodway — May she rest in peace. 🌹

This is a deeply sad account of a sincere seeker whose aspiration met the hard limits of body, mind, and circumstance. It is offered not as judgment, but as a reminder of how suffering can arise even on the path of practice, and of the need for great care, honesty, and compassion toward ourselves and one another.

Claire Rodway was, by all accounts, a healthy, energetic woman of service. A former nurse and wellness teacher from Christchurch, Dorset, she lived with genuine commitment to helping others. Drawn to the Dharma as a way of deepening compassion and understanding, she approached challenge rather than avoiding it.

 When she chose to undertake a lengthy retreat at Kagyu Samye Ling’s Holy Isle centre in October 2024, she did so willingly, seeing the discipline as an important stage in her spiritual journey.

Holy Isle is intentionally secluded. Its isolation has long supported serious practitioners who wish to set aside ordinary distractions and enter a life of meditation, silence, ritual, and disciplined effort. The program Claire joined was rigorous. Each day included approximately 650 full-body prostrations — a traditional practice of humility, purification, and perseverance familiar within Tibetan Buddhism. For many experienced practitioners these movements can become deeply meaningful; physically they place repeated demand on knees, shoulders, wrists, hips, and back. The schedule also involved extended silence and, at times, very early rising for teachings broadcast from Nepal, disrupting ordinary sleep patterns over many months.

At first Claire believed she could meet the challenge. Friends had cautioned her about the intensity, yet she remained confident. Gradually, however, persistent back pain arose and steadily worsened. The centre responded by adjusting her practice to kneeling or seated forms to ease the strain. Despite these modifications the pain continued. After roughly five months she left the formal retreat but stayed on the island a little longer, hoping rest would restore her. When she finally returned home to Dorset the pain did not subside.

By July 2025 she received a diagnosis of fibromyalgia — a complex condition of widespread pain, exhaustion, sleep disturbance, and heightened sensitivity whose causes are still imperfectly understood. Trauma, prolonged physical stress, disturbed sleep, and sustained physiological strain are among the factors that may contribute in susceptible people, though direct causation is rarely simple to establish. For Claire the diagnosis brought little relief. The independent, active life of volunteering, teaching, and work contracted. Eventually she could no longer live alone and moved in with her mother.

Friends observed the change. The woman who had gone to Scotland hopeful now spoke of regret, of feeling lost, of pain that worsened. Medical care continued — medication, antidepressants, referral to specialist pain services — yet chronic pain often creates its own cycle: pain disturbs sleep, poor sleep intensifies pain, ongoing suffering feeds despair, and despair in turn amplifies the experience of pain. Breaking that cycle can be extraordinarily difficult.

The letters she left reveal a depth of exhaustion rather than impulsiveness. She wrote that fibromyalgia had destroyed the life she knew, that the pain was constant from waking until sleep, and that she could no longer contribute through work or service. Her world had narrowed until hope itself felt out of reach.

At the inquest her family raised important questions about the welfare of participants on intensive, remote retreats: screening, early recognition of deterioration, and the particular vulnerability that silence, isolation, and strong spiritual commitment can sometimes bring.

 Representatives of the centre pointed to decades of similar programs conducted without incident, to the adjustments made when Claire reported pain, and to their established record of care. Assistant Coroner Richard Middleton concluded that Claire died by suicide.

 He did not find that the monastery had directly caused her condition or that her death was preventable, while acknowledging that common sense allows for the possibility that cumulative physical strain, disrupted sleep, and repeated exertion may have aggravated the suffering she later endured. The finding stopped short of assigning blame and recognized a web of interacting causes.

Claire’s story is unsettling precisely because it resists simple conclusions. It asks us to hold together rigorous aspiration and realistic care for the body; to remember that chronic pain can dismantle a person’s sense of self and leave the sufferer feeling profoundly isolated; and to meet invisible illness with the same compassion we extend to more visible wounds. In the light of the Dharma we may reflect that all conditioned things are unreliable, that suffering arises from many causes and conditions, and that the path itself requires both courage and wise restraint.

May Claire’s aspiration for awakening not be forgotten. May those who suffer chronic pain or despair find skillful support, companionship, and relief. And may all of us who walk this path do so with greater tenderness toward the fragile, precious bodies and minds that carry us. ❤️🙏🏼

➖➖➖

Information drawn from multiple news sources.

📸 From The Scottish Sun  https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/16621262/teacher-hurt-back-buddhist-retreat-took-own-life/

American Fibromyalgia Syndrome Association: 👇🏼

 https://www.fibromyalgiafund.org/

Fibromyalgia Support Group 👇🏼

https://www.facebook.com/share/g/196KGTBSww/

Seeking information and history regarding Samye Dzong Dublin & Rokpa Trust Ireland

Hello everyone,
I am currently gathering information to put together a factual overview of the history and operations of the Samye Dzong Centre in Dublin and Rokpa Trust in Ireland.
I am interested in understanding how the organisation developed over time, who was involved in running it, and what the general experience was like for those who attended. If you have any knowledge of the centre, whether as a practitioner, volunteer, or staff member, I would be interested in hearing your perspective.

Areas of interest include:

• Daily Operations: What was a typical day or week like at the centre, and what programmes were offered?
• Behind the Scenes: Who were the main figures involved in managing the centre and coordinating its activities?
• Rokpa Trust: How did Rokpa Trust operate within Ireland, and how did it interact with the local Dublin centre?
• General Experience: What was your personal experience of the environment and community during your time there?

You are welcome to share your accounts in the comments below.

Seeking information and history regarding Samye Dzong Dublin & Rokpa Trust Ireland

Hello everyone,
I am currently gathering information to put together a factual overview of the history and operations of the Samye Dzong Centre in Dublin and Rokpa Trust in Ireland.
I am interested in understanding how the organisation developed over time, who was involved in running it, and what the general experience was like for those who attended. If you have any knowledge of the centre, whether as a practitioner, volunteer, or staff member, I would be interested in hearing your perspective.

Areas of interest include:

• Daily Operations: What was a typical day or week like at the centre, and what programmes were offered?
• Behind the Scenes: Who were the main figures involved in managing the centre and coordinating its activities?
• Rokpa Trust: How did Rokpa Trust operate within Ireland, and how did it interact with the local Dublin centre?
• General Experience: What was your personal experience of the environment and community during your time there?

You are welcome to share your accounts in the comments below.

Charity Commission

Charity Inquiry: Rigpa Fellowship

Updated 30 December 2020

This report was amended on 30 December 2020. Two paragraphs were inserted into the original report published on 20 November 2020 and one sentence was removed due to repetition. These amendments were made to add clarity and context after the Commission considered representations from a member of the public.

The charity

Rigpa Fellowship (‘the charity’) was registered on 14 February 1980. It is governed by a Trust Deed dated 11 November 1979 as amended by a Deed dated 25 August 1987 and a Resolution dated 31 July 2019.

The charity’s entry can be found on the register of charities.

Events leading up to the opening of the inquiry

In August 2017, the Commission was notified of the existence of a letter which had been published on the internet.

The letter, dated 14 July 2017, was signed by eight students of Sogyal Lakar, who was the Spiritual Director of the charity at the time was the letter was written.

The letter contained numerous accounts describing mental, physical and sexual abuse which were alleged to have taken place over several years.

The letter was examined, and a Regulatory Compliance case was opened in August 2017. The purpose of the Regulatory Compliance case was to gather evidence and information that could be used in determining whether a Statutory Inquiry under s46 of the Charities Act 2011 should be opened.

The letter dated 14 July 2017 formed part of the information considered within the Regulatory Compliance case and provides the context for the events which followed its publication.

During the Regulatory Compliance stage, the Commission engaged with the trustees of the charity and gathered evidence both from the trustees and from individuals with knowledge of the events described in the letter of 14 July 2017.

Shortly after the Commission started engaging with the trustees of the charity, the Commission was informed that the charity had engaged a firm of lawyers, Lewis Silkin LLP, to undertake an investigation into the allegations of mental, physical and sexual abuse made in the letter referred to in paragraph 3 above.

Lewis Silkin LLP were formally appointed on 19 December 2017.

The aims of the Lewis Silkin investigation were as follows:

• to ascertain in more detail the specific allegations against Sogyal Lakar and to identify the potential witnesses to those allegations
• to understand the extent to which senior members of the charity were aware of these allegations and whether they were dealt with appropriately at the time
• to enable the charity to take a first step towards healing and reconciliation with those who feel they have been harmed, by listening to the experiences in an open, impartial and sensitive way
• to provide an independent assessment of what the charity needs to learn and change in the light of these experiences, in terms of structures, processes and the like

On 22 August 2018, Lewis Silkin LLP submitted a copy of their report (“the LS Report”) to the trustees of the charity.

The LS Report, which runs to over 50 pages, provides a comprehensive account of the investigation undertaken by Lewis Silkin LLP and resulted in an extensive list of recommendations. The Executive Summary is set out below:

Executive summary

“Whilst I have seen evidence that many people feel that they have benefitted greatly from having Sogyal Lakar as their teacher, individual experiences are very different. There are varying degrees of closeness to Sogyal Lakar, with the closest relationships regularly referred to as the “inner circle”. The experiences of some of the members of the inner circle are very different from the experiences of many of those who are less close.

Not all of the allegations against Sogyal Lakar are upheld, as explained in the body of the report below, but based on the evidence available to me, I am satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities:

• some students of Sogyal Lakar (who were part of the ‘inner circle’, as described later in this report) have been subjected to serious physical, sexual and emotional abuse by him; and
• there were senior individuals within the charity who were aware of at least some of these issues and failed to address them, leaving others at risk

A number of serious concerns arise out of my findings which, in my opinion, must be addressed. Recommendations and proposed action points are set out at the conclusion of this report. “

Following the publication of the LS Report, the Commission continued to engage with the trustees of the charity and to monitor progress in respect of the implementation of the recommendations made by Lewis Silkin LLP.

Of particular concern to the Commission, were the findings in the LS Report that “there were senior individuals within Rigpa who were aware of at least some of these issues and failed to address them, leaving others at risk.”

The Regulatory Compliance case concluded when it was determined that insufficient progress had been made to address the serious matters that the LS Report had identified. Accordingly, it was decided that a statutory inquiry under s46 of the Charities Act 2011 should be opened to address these failings.

On 8 November 2018 the Commission opened a statutory inquiry into the charity under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011.

The inquiry closed with the publication of this report.

Issues under Investigation

The inquiry was established to consider the following regulatory issues:

• the seriousness of the findings and allegations of abuse reported to the Charity Commission and contained within the LS Report dated 22 August 2018 and concerns over the extent to which the charity currently provides a safe environment for its beneficiaries, staff and volunteers
• the failure to report serious incidents in particular those relating to physical or sexual abuse
• serious concerns about the governance and the willingness and capability of the trustees to effect meaningful change to the charity’s safeguarding culture and processes
• public trust and confidence concerns due to high profile media interest and coverage
• regulatory concerns about the extent to which the charity has adequate financial controls

Findings

The seriousness of the findings and allegations of abuse reported to the Charity Commission and contained within the LS Report dated 22 August 2018

The inquiry found that some students had been subjected to mental, physical and sexual abuse by Sogyal Lakar. The inquiry also found that there were senior individuals within the charity at that time who were aware of at least some of these issues and failed to address them, which exposed the charity’s beneficiaries to risk of harm.

Patrick Gaffney

The inquiry met with Mr Patrick Gaffney. Mr Gaffney was one of the original trustees of the charity and was one of the late Sogyal Lakar’s closest students. He appears to have played a primary role in Sogyal Lakar’s involvement with the charity during this time. The Commission was advised that he resigned from his position as trustee on 31 August 2018.

In late 1994, a woman referred to as ‘Janice Doe’ lodged a lawsuit against Sogyal Lakar and Rigpa in the United States. The plaintiff had alleged physical, sexual and mental abuse by Sogyal Lakar. Based on the LS Report and other documents in the Commission’s possession, it is apparent that Mr Gaffney was heavily involved in the charity’s response to the Janice Doe allegations at the time. This is clear evidence that Mr Gaffney was aware of earlier allegations concerning Sogyal Lakar’s conduct. This means he should have been particularly vigilant and careful, ensuring that appropriate systems were put in place to deal with such allegations and any allegations were dealt with scrupulously and investigated appropriately with the necessary action taken as a result.

On 15 January 2018, the Commission met with the trustees including Mr Gaffney. During the meeting, Mr Gaffney discussed physical acts by Sogyal Lakar towards others, saying that he wouldn’t characterise these as violent. He said that these were only occasional; he had only seen around half a dozen incidences which were meant as a teaching method with no intention to harm. Mr Gaffney stated that he had never received any complaints from those who had been on the receiving end of such acts. In the meeting, Mr Gaffney appeared unable or unwilling to recognise the serious nature of the allegations that had been made and the lack of appropriate action taken.

Based on the information in the LS Report and further evidence provided to the inquiry, it is apparent that Mr Gaffney did not act appropriately when provided with allegations about Sogyal Lakar harming beneficiaries of the charity. Mr Gaffney had either failed to recognise or sought to downplay the seriousness of the allegations.

The inquiry found that Mr Gaffney was unfit to be a trustee of the charity or for charities generally and was subsequently disqualified from acting as a trustee a period of eight years under the provisions of s181A of the Charities Act 2011.

Susan Burrows

The inquiry also met with another trustee, Susan Burrows. Ms Burrows was one of two UK based trustees of the charity who, together with two American based counterparts, commissioned the LS Report.

The inquiry found that Ms Burrows had knowledge of instances and allegations of improper acts and sexual and physical abuse by Sogyal Lakar against students at the charity. Ms Burrows failed to take appropriate action in response to this information.

At a meeting with the inquiry on 23 January 2019 Ms Burrows was specifically asked whether anyone at all had previously told her of instances of abuse concerning Sogyal Lakar and she stated “absolutely not” and indicated that she had no knowledge of the allegations against Sogyal Lakar until the letter dated 14 July 2017 was published.

On 18 November 1994, the charity published a document which commented on the Janice Doe (see earlier paragraph) case in the following terms:

“this complaint may be exploited by the media, perhaps in extreme and scandalous ways” and further “we are not in a position to comment on this matter or respond to the allegations.”

This charity circular was signed by several key Rigpa figures including Ms Burrows. It is therefore apparent that Ms Burrows must have been aware of the Janice Doe allegations.

Similarly, the inquiry found that Ms Burrows had met with a former trustee in May 2007 to discuss an allegation of abuse made by an individual described as “Student 27” in the LS Report.

At a meeting with the inquiry on 23 January 2019, Ms Burrows was asked whether allegations of sexual abuse had been raised at the meetings she attended in May 2007 with a former trustee. In response Ms Burrows stated to the Commission that no allegations of sexual abuse had been raised at those meetings. Ms Burrows characterised the relationship between Sogyal Lakar and Student 27 as being one between consenting adults and appeared unable or unwilling to recognise the serious nature of the allegations that had been made and the lack of appropriate action taken.

Based on the information in the LS Report and further evidence obtained, the inquiry found that Ms Burrows had not acted appropriately when provided with allegations about Sogyal Lakar harming beneficiaries of the charity. Ms Burrows either failed to recognise or sought to downplay the seriousness of the allegations.

The inquiry found that Ms Burrows was unfit to be a trustee of the charity or for charities generally and was removed as a trustee of the charity and all charities under the provisions of s79(4) of the Charities Act 2011.

Concerns over the extent to which the charity provided a safe environment for its beneficiaries, staff and volunteers

The inquiry found that the charity’s safeguarding policies and procedures at that time were inadequate and insufficiently robust to protect beneficiaries in the UK from the risks of serious harm. In particular, the former Trustees of the charity placed too much reliance on policies and procedures produced by the international Rigpa body and provided links to these policies on the charity’s website. The policies and procedures produced by the international Rigpa body were not found to adequately address potential safeguarding risks to beneficiaries in the UK (for example by blurring the distinction between consent and submission and placing too much responsibility for safeguarding on the beneficiary rather than the teacher). The former Trustees did not consider or devise safeguarding policies on their own and deferred to the international Rigpa body. The former Trustees were insufficiently rigorous in their consideration and analysis of the policies and procedures produced by the international Rigpa body. The former Trustees should have ensured that any international policies referred to were sufficient for UK regulations and law.

However, the inquiry found that the current Trustees had taken independent professional advice and implemented new safeguarding policies and procedures tailored specifically to the operations of the UK charity. The Commission expects that the Trustees will comply fully with these new safeguarding policies and procedures and monitor their effectiveness in protecting beneficiaries from the risks of serious harm.

In addition, the Commission found that the current Trustees had put in place measures to effectively sever the governance link between the UK charity and its international counterparts to enable the UK charity to operate independently of overseas direction.

The failure to report serious incidents in particular those relating to physical or sexual abuse

In 1994, the Commission received information relating to allegations of serious sexual abuse on the part of Mr Lakar. Allegations of such abuse were discussed at a meeting between the Commission and all four of the then trustees on 9 November 1994. It is not possible to provide a definitive analysis of the Commission’s engagement with the Charity in 1994, as internal records have since been destroyed. Some documentation dating back to 1994 was provided to the Commission during the course of this regulatory engagement with the Charity, but this documentation does not provide a full picture of the Commission’s engagement in 1994. On balance, the Commission appears to have accepted assurances provided by the majority of the trustees serving at the time and taken no further action at that time.

The Commission has seen no evidence that it received any further reports of serious incidents, complaints or concerns at the Charity in the period following this engagement in 1994 up to 2017 that may have given us cause to re-engage with the Charity.

The former trustees did submit, in August 2017, a serious incident report in relation to the letter by students dated 14 July 2017 but they did so after the Commission had already established contact with them regarding the matter.

The inquiry found examples of allegations of mental, physical and sexual abuse prior to August 2017 that had not been reported to the Commission. This failure to report serious incidents amounts to mismanagement and/or misconduct by the former trustees appointed at the time.

Serious concerns about the governance and the willingness and capability of the trustees to effect meaningful change to the charity’s safeguarding culture and processes

The inquiry found that some former trustees and senior management figures at the charity were responsible for acts of mismanagement and misconduct in relation to the governance of the charity. In particular, some key former members of the charity’s governing body had failed to demonstrate the willingness and capability to effect meaningful change to the charity’s safeguarding culture and processes. However, the inquiry also found that the current trustees have adopted new safeguarding policies and procedures to better safeguard the charity’s beneficiaries

Public trust and confidence concerns due to high profile media interest and coverage

The inquiry found that misconduct and mismanagement by former senior figures at the charity had led to the risk that public trust and confidence in the charity and charities generally would be adversely affected.

Regulatory concerns about the extent to which the charity had adequate financial controls

The inquiry also found evidence that in 2017, £12,000 in cash had been withdrawn from the charity’s bank account and into the custody of a trustee on a single day. At the inquiry meeting held on 15 January 2018 the trustees explained that these funds were passed to the trustee because the charity bank account mandate was not up to date. The only trustee able to sign cheques at the time was unavailable to do so due to illness. The trustees had then decided to transfer £12,000 to the trustee to enable that individual to reimburse expenses claims made by volunteers at the annual Easter Retreat. At a further meeting with the Commission on 23 October 2019 the trustee concerned indicated that this cash had been passed to an employee of the charity and placed in the charity’s safe. The trustees indicated to the Commission that any expenditure of charitable funds utilised in this way was receipted and subsequently provided supporting documentation to the Commission. Handling large amounts of cash is not good practice because of the risk that the person entrusted with the cash could misappropriate it.

Charity trustees have a duty to ensure that charity assets are protected from the risk of misapplication or misappropriation. The trustees should have ensured that there were adequate financial controls in place and proper mechanisms for the reimbursement of legitimate expenses. However, the inquiry also found that the current trustees have adopted new financial controls policies and procedures to better safeguard the charity’s assets.

Conclusions

The Commission concluded that there was mismanagement and misconduct in the administration of the charity, particularly in regard to how former trustees responded to and managed safeguarding concerns and their inability to create a safe culture within the charity which exposed some beneficiaries to harm. The seriousness of these findings resulted in the Commission exercising its powers to disqualify and remove two of the former trustees.

Both the former and current trustees cooperated with the inquiry and recognised the Commission’s serious regulatory concerns. As a result of the Commission’s actions during the inquiry, the charity now has a new board of trustees in place and has adopted new safeguarding policies and procedures to better safeguard its beneficiaries.

Regulatory Action Taken

During the inquiry the Commission used powers under s52 and s47 of the Charities Act 2011 to obtain information.

In respect of Patrick Gaffney, he was disqualified as a charity trustee of the charity and of all charities for a period of eight years under the provisions of s181A of the Charities Act 2011. Mr Gaffney’s name was added to the list of disqualified trustees on 12 April 2019.

In respect of Susan Burrows, she was removed as a trustee of the charity and all charities under the provisions of s79(4) of the Charities Act 2011. Ms Burrows was removed from her position by the inquiry and entered onto the list of removed trustees on 20 September 2019. She is also permanently disqualified from serving as a trustee or senior manager of any charity in England and Wales, under section 178 of the Charities Act.

Issues for the wider sector

Governance

Trustees are representatives of the charity they govern or the charitable funds they are responsible for, in the charity sector. Trustees must be aware of and act in accordance with their legal duties. The conduct of trustees can be a key driver of public trust and confidence in the charity sector. When the conduct of trustees falls below the standards expected there can be damage to the reputation of individual trustees, the charity and possibly the wider charity sector.

Reporting duties to the Commission (including Serious Incident Reporting)

A serious incident is an adverse event, whether actual or alleged, which results in or risks significant:

• harm to your charity’s beneficiaries, staff, volunteers or others who come into contact with your charity through its work (who are collectively referred to throughout this guidance as people who come into contact with your charity through its work)
• loss of your charity’s money or assets
• damage to your charity’s property
• harm to your charity’s work or reputation

A serious incident should be reported to us immediately, not just on completion of the annual return. More information on reporting serious incidents can be found on GOV.UK.

Safeguarding and protecting people

You need to make a report to the Commission if a serious safeguarding risk materialises. This will usually be if any of the following occur:

• incidents of abuse or mistreatment (alleged or actual) of beneficiaries of the charity (adults or children) which have resulted in or risk significant harm to them
• this happened while they were under the care of the charity
• someone connected with the charity, for example a trustee, staff member or volunteer, was responsible for the abuse or mistreatment (alleged or actual)
• other incidents of abuse or mistreatment (alleged or actual) of people who come into contact with the charity through its work, which have resulted in or risk significant harm to them and are connected to the charity’s activities
• breaches of procedures or policies at the charity which have put people who come into contact with it through its work at significant risk of harm, including failure to carry out relevant vetting checks which would have identified that a person is disqualified in law from holding their position within the charity. This might be, for example, because they are disqualified under safeguarding legislation from working with children and/or adults at risk

The above may include incidents in the workplace that have resulted in or risk significant harm to trustees, staff or volunteers.

As well as reporting to us, you should also notify the police, local authority and/or relevant regulator or statutory agency responsible for dealing with these incidents.

Naropa University describes itself as the "birthplace of the modern mindfulness movement" in the United States. It was founded in 1974 in Boulder, Colorado, by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche.

Student Magdalena DeRosa reported one of her professors at Naropa University for sexual harassment. She thought she was entering a process that might take a few months or maybe an entire semester. Instead, it lasted nearly two years.

Something is cracking open in the spiritual and wellness world; and it has been for a while. Have wisdom traditions containing genuine gifts been composted into a product that only serves the very forces those traditions were born to resist?

It is no news that some powerful spiritual leaders with devoted followers have, for a long time, abused that power for dominance and, in many cases, for sexual exploitation. The Epstein files are not an interruption to the pattern; they are the pattern, made suddenly impossible to scroll past.

We want to reflect on the conditions—not just the men, not just the crimes, but the architecture of silence that held it all in place. What kind of spiritual culture produces that silence? What kind of spiritual culture makes it possible to look at harm and call it a lesson in perception? What has gone awry with our approach to spirituality when the latter can be used as a cover for abuse? How come much of the therapeutic and spiritual communities remain silent in the face of crimes witnessed by the entire world?

To explore these and related issues, this discussion brings together mytho-poetic spiritual teacher Bayo Akomolafe Ph.D., writer & podcaster Matthew Remski, author & playwright V, ceremonial leader Pat McCabe, spiritual teacher & psychologist Tara Brach and author & physician Gabor Maté in a wide-ranging discussion that will also invite audience participation.

The intention is to leave participants encouraged to find the spiritual inner strength needed to pursue truth without losing discrimination in the process, without giving away their power; to discuss compassionately, without judgment but with clarity, what the Epstein revelations can tell us about who we are, about our culture, and about the nature of how we construct reality; to move beyond a so-called equanimity and “non-attachment” that is indistinguishable from numbness and passivity in the face of harm, in the face of evil.

Gabor Maté https://drgabormate.com/
Bayo Akomolafe https://www.bayoakomolafe.net/
Pat McCabe https://www.patmccabe.net/
Tara Brach https://www.tarabrach.com
V (formerly Eve Ensler) https://www.eveensler.org
Matthew Remski https://matthewremski.com/

Science and Nonduality (SAND) contemplates and reveres the beauty, complexity, pain, and great mystery that weave the infinite cycles of existence. We explore beyond ultimate truths, binary thinking, and individual awakening while acknowledging humanity as a mere part of the intricate web of life.