關於 a no less than b ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

TỪ VỰNG CHỦ ĐỀ WORK [Kèm bài mẫu]
🎗PHẦN TỪ VỰNG CHUNG
- work productivity: năng suất làm việc
- a nine-to-five job: công việc giờ hành chính
- poor work performance: hiệu suất làm việc kém
- sick leave: nghỉ phép vì bệnh
- professional work environment: môi trường làm việc chuyên nghiệp
- to get a well-paid job: có được 1 công việc được trả lương tốt
- to earn a high salary: có được mức lương cao
- job satisfaction: sự hài lòng khi làm việc
- to work long hours: làm việc nhiều giờ
- to limit work hours: giới hạn giờ làm việc
- to suffer from various health issues: mắc các vấn đề về sức khỏe
- low productivity: năng suất thấp
- a case in point: 1 ví dụ điển hình
- to frequently feel exhausted: thường xuyên cảm thấy kiệt sức
- to make more errors at work: sai sót nhiều hơn tại sở làm
- to have serious consequences for …: gây ra hậu quả nặng nề cho…
- busy work schedules: lịch trình công việc bận rộn
- to be self-employed: tự làm chủ
- to pursue a career: theo đuổi sự nghiệp
- to learn various skills and experience: học được những kỹ năng và kinh nghiệm

🎗TỪ VỰNG WORKING FROM HOME
- to provide us with flexibility and convenience: cung cấp cho chúng ta sự linh hoạt và tiện lợi
- do not need to go to the office on a daily basis: không cần tới công sở hàng ngày
- to save a large amount of time commuting back and forth to work: tiết kiệm 1 lượng lớn thời gian đi lại
- to have the freedom to choose where and when they want to work: có sự tự do lựa chọn nơi đâu và khi nào họ muốn làm việc
- to require high levels of discipline and commitment: đòi hỏi mức độ kỷ luật và cam kết cao
- to have no supervision and restrictions: không có sự giám sát hay hạn chế nào
- might experience feelings of loneliness and isolation sometimes: thỉnh thoảng có thể trải qua cảm giác cô đơn và đơn độc
- to easily get distracted by things like movies/ online games/…: dễ dàng bị sao nhãng bởi các thứ như phim, games online
- cannot concentrate entirely on their work: không thể hoàn toàn tập trung vào công việc
- to negatively affect their work performance and productivity: ảnh hưởng tiêu cực tới hiệu suất làm việc
- to be difficult to develop social skills (communication, teamwork skills,…): khó phát triển các kỹ năng xã hội (kỹ năng giao tiếp, làm việc đội nhóm,…)
- to have less chance to interact and communicate directly with their colleagues and clients: có ít cơ hội tương tác và giao tiếp trực tiếp với đồng nghiệp và khách hàng

🎗PHẦN BÀI MẪU
People tend to work longer hours nowadays. Working long hours has a negative effect on themselves their families and the society so working hours should be restricted. Do you agree or disagree?

Working longer hours is getting more common in today’s society. I personally believe that this trend not only has a severe impact on the workers themselves, but also on their families and the community as a whole. Therefore, I totally agree with the idea of limiting working hours.

A few decades ago, a person normally worked an average of eight hours per day. Average daily working hours in recent years, however, have significantly increased to ten or even fourteen. This, in my opinion, adversely affects employees’ health and productivity. For example, people who spend longer at work are more likely to suffer from various health issues, ranging from fatigue to more serious problems like anxiety disorders or even stroke . Failing health leads to more sick leave , poor work performance and low productivity. My cousin is a case in point. Working nearly twelve hours on a daily basis, he frequently feels exhausted and makes more errors at work than he used to.

I also think that extended hours of work has serious consequences for families and communities . At the family level, busy work schedules prevent people from taking frequent family trips or even just having meals together. Relationships among members are greatly weakened if they cannot make time for each other. In terms of community life, overworked people do not devote time to voluntary activity that brings benefits for their society. My uncle, for example, hardly has time for local community service projects such as conservation work or working with a charity because he works more than sixty hours per week.

In conclusion, I would argue that working time should be reduced since the frequency of long working hours exerts an adverse effect on employees, their family bonds and their community.
(293 words, written by Nguyen Huyen)

https://ielts-nguyenhuyen.com/tu-vung-ielts-chu-de-work/
#ieltsnguyenhuyen #ieltsvocabulary #ieltswriting

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”

致我在新加坡的客人們 ❤️
To My Clients in Singapore

一、🧧

這一年來感謝大家對我的愛戴，及有時候送的小禮物，但紅包錢我從不收多。

我批八字收費是新幣$488，時不時會有客人塞多些錢，放個滿數$500在紅包內，說是一點點心意。

我怎麼就值多個$12而已啊？？*震驚🤯😂

也曾有位看風水的客戶塞了一百多塊新幣在裡頭。每個紅包我都會點算，多的我會抽出來還給您，因為無功不受祿。少一毛，我也必定會追。😂

二、🍵

我沒有辦公室，平日在外見客人。

新加坡目前法律規定，大家出外都得戴口罩。在餐館咖啡廳，得有餐飲在桌上才能脫下口罩進食。

我批八字一向包含看客人面相，再加以指點，因此需要客人脫下口罩給我看。

但我們必須遵守法律，所以請每位客人就座後，自行點個飲料或什麼的，好方便我能看您的面相。

您在等待我完成前面客人的諮詢時，就可以先看菜單並點您要的飲料。有時叫個侍應生會花些時間，您先點就能省卻我們等待的時間，好讓我多些時間為您批命。

有的客人平日節儉慣了，只喝餐館提供的免費白開水，或說已經吃飽了或什麼的。

您想想看，我們使用人家的設施一兩個小時，消費一點點是應該的，要不然我們這樣佔別人的便宜，也是在犯偷盜罪。

生意難做，您如果開門做生意，捫心自問，會喜歡別人來您的咖啡廳坐數小時，吹冷氣，而一點小錢都不花嗎？

我做人很簡單，也不喜浪費唇舌。我是來教您如何積福積德的，您不點我們就不看，因為我不能助紂為虐。🙃

三、💵

許多客人很熱情，會想幫我買單，也曾有一些客人為了感謝我，（也可能希望我不要早死😅）便以我的名義做捐款功德。

謝謝您們，您們的愛我深深感受到。🥰

我還夠錢用，可以自己買單，我每天也在勤修功德，積極的累積福報。😁

百善孝為先，捐款人的名字，請放您們父母的名字，他們比我更需要。

但請記得為自己買單。經常有客人，不知是否是看了命後太興奮，沒結帳就衝出餐廳了。我得把他們叫回來，或因為我不知他們未結帳，他們隔天得自己到餐廳「自首」。

您是來找我幫忙的，別因為大意而佔了我的便宜。

四、🏃🏻‍♀💨️🏃🏻‍♂️💨

我批八字，一天往往會見幾位客人。

在等待的客人，您認我比我認您來得容易，因此請在我看得到您的三四米內等待。

我不是費玉清，您在千里之外或隔著幾道牆等待，我看不到您呀～

以前下課時，我收拾書包特別快。我看不到人，以為您沒來，可以早收工，笑嘻嘻一溜煙我就跑人了。

遲到的客人，就算只有一分鐘，我也不會見。

改命貴在動作快，人生貴在還青春。

如讀者Danny Sew留言：要招貴人就要在給貴人看得到你的地方。

我見的客人一離開，您就趕緊對號入座，別還等我發出十二道金牌，您才慢條斯理的走千里貓步過來。我若要費時間找神出鬼沒的您，您動作又莫名奇妙的慢，會吃進我們諮詢的時間，這樣驢年馬月您才改得到命呀！

（十二生肖中沒有驢，也就是說永遠改不了命了～）

———————————————————

To My Clients in Singapore ❤️

1) 🧧

In this one year, I have received much love and care from all of you and sometimes even little presents. But when it comes to my fees in the red packet, I never take more than what I should.

My Bazi consultation fee is S$488. From time to time, some clients will stuff a bit more and round it up to $500, saying that it’s a token of their appreciation.

How can I be only worth $12 more??? *Shocked 🤯😂

Once there was also a Feng Shui client who gave me a separate red packet of S$100+. I count the monies in every red packet and will return the extra to you, because I only take what I should. Similarly, if you give me one cent less, you bet I will chase you for it. 😂

2) 🍵

I do not have an office so I usually meet my clients outside.

Singapore law currently stipulates that we must all wear masks once we are out of our homes. At F&B establishments, we can only remove our masks when we are eating/drinking ie. there are food/drinks on our table.

All along, I do face-reading for clients, as part of my Bazi consultation. Hence, I would need you to remove your mask so that I can read more accurately.

However we must abide by the law, thus please place a food/drink order once you are seated.

If you are waiting for me to finish my consultation with another client, it will be more efficient if you look through the menu beforehand and order first. Calling for a waiter sometimes take time. Placing your order early will save us waiting time and I can proceed with your consultation earlier.

Some clients are thrifty by nature and only consumes the free water provided by the restaurant, or say that they have just eaten.

Think over this: if we use the facilities of a place for 1-2 hours, it is very fair enough to spend a bit of money. Otherwise, we are just taking advantage of other people, and that is equivalent to committing the sin of stealing.

It’s hard to do business. Put yourself in the shoes of the business owner: would you like it if there are freeloaders taking up space in your restaurant for a few hours, enjoying the free air-con and not spending a single cent?

I’m a simple person and don’t like waste too much time explaining. If you are adamant about not placing any order, then I will not proceed with the consultation because I cannot be aiding a sin. 🙃

3) 💵

I often meet friendly clients who wish to pay for my bill. There are also clients who made donations under my name, as a way to thank me for my help. Either that or they are hoping that I won’t die early with more merits under my karma belt. 😂

Thank you so much. I really do feel the love and care you have for me. 🥰

I still have enough money to spend so I can pay for myself. I make it a point to do meritorious acts every day and am diligently gathering good fortune too. 😁

Filial piety is the most important of all virtues. So please donate under your parents’ names instead. They will need it more than me.

Just remember to pay for your bill. There are many instances where the Bazi client gets too excited after our consultation ends and takes flight without paying. Don’t end up taking advantage of my kindness when you are here to seek my help.

4) 🏃🏻‍♀💨️🏃🏻‍♂️💨

I see a few clients in a day when I do Bazi consultations.

For my clients who are next in line, it’s easier for you to recognise me than the other way round. So please wait 3-4 meters from where I am seated.

I’m not Fei Yu Ching. If you stand Faaaaaaraway, or behind a few walls and pillars, my eyes just can’t see you.

Back in my schooling days, I’m especially quick to pack my bag when the class dismissal bell rings. If I can’t see anyone, I will assume you pull a no-show, and run off gleefully before you can say Abracadabra, thinking that I can knock off early.

Clients who come late, even if it is just one minute, I will opt to cancel the consultation.

The crux of destiny transformation is in your speed and action. The essence of life is in your youth.

Like what my reader Danny Sew commented: if you wish to beckon more benefactors, then stand at the place where your benefactors can see you.

Once the client I’m meeting leaves, please storm in to take your seat. Don’t wait for me to send out an entourage to invite you, and watch you slowly sashay a thousand miles to my table.

If I have to spend time hunting for you hiding in the shadows, and you aren’t any faster than my pet tortoise, this will eat into your consultation time. Alas! Your Destiny can then only be changed in the year of the Donkey.

(There isn’t any Hee Haw in the 12 Chinese zodiac signs, and that means never are you going to be able to change your destiny.)

⬇️⬇️English recipe follows ⬇️⬇️
田雞榨菜臘味煲仔飯：

材料：
白米4膠嘜
田雞4隻
油鴨髀1隻
臘腸2條
膶腸1條
榨菜包1包
薑1小舊

處理：
1. 田雞，每隻1開4。
2. 田雞，清水沖洗乾淨，擎乾水。
3. 田雞調味：
a. 薑汁1湯匙
b. 紹興酒1茶匙
c. 鮑魚汁1湯匙
撈勻，再加入生粉1湯匙，繼續撈勻。
4. 加入榨菜撈勻，一同調味，。
5. 油鴨髀，切去皮及脂肪。

烹調：
1. 中火煲滾一煲水，放臘腸、膶腸及油鴨髀出水2分鐘，倒去水分。
2. 在煲內加入白米4膠嘜。
3. 洗淨白米。
4. 落水份量，米面少於1吋。
5. 大火滾起，轉最慢火。
6. 放油鴨髀、臘腸及膶腸。
7. 冚蓋，煮至收水。
8. 放田雞在飯面。
9. 冚蓋，轉大火，即時轉慢火，焗熟田雞，不要打開煲蓋。
10. 焗10分鐘，烘4邊，每邊大概2分鐘，完成程序。
11. 切好臘腸，膶腸及油鴨髀。
12. 可享用。

Frog claypot rice with cured meat and mustards:

Ingredients:
Plain rice 4 measure cups
Frogs 4 Nos.
Cured duck's leg 1 No.
Chinese sausages 2 Nos.
Duck's liver sausage 1 No.
Mustard 1 pack
Ginger (small) 1 No.

Preparation:
1. Frogs, cut into 4 pieces per each.
2. Frogs, rinse thoroughly and hang dry.
3. Season the frogs:
a. Ginger sauce 1 tbsp
b. Shaoxing wine 1 tsp
c. Abalone sauce 1 tbsp
Mix well. Then mix well with tapioca starch 1 tbsp.
4. Mix well with mustard.
5. Cured duck's leg, cut away its skin and fat.

Steps:
1. Boil up a pot of water. Put all the cured meat. Boil for 2 minutes. Then pour away water.
2. Put 4 measure cups of plain rice into pot.
3. Rinse the plain rice.
4. Put water above the level of plain rice less than 1".
5. Boil up at high flame. Then turn to low flame.
6. Put all the cured meat.
7. Cover up the pot, until the water in pot has been evaporated.
8. Put frog pieces on rice in pot.
9. Cover up the pot. Turn to high flame. Then turn to low flame. The heat inside the pot will cook the frogs well. Do not lift up the cover of pot.
10. Heat at low flame for 10 minutes. Heat at 4 sides. Each side has to be heated for 2 minutes. Complete.
11. Cut the cured meat well.
12. Serve.

?煲仔飯/煲仔菜?(系列播放清單)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkU_SdeTtB_Tuisabth907E6CxvfkUTGb

有好嘢介紹? ?飲食/旅行?酒店?(系列播放清單)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkU_SdeTtB_S7NRTYaeYtzehOoboYigzJ

???我有900多條片?大家入呢個網址 ?全部可以睇曬?
https://goo.gl/cuyAZa hip???

??I have more than 900 movies?Everyone enters this URL ?All can be viewed ?
https://goo.gl/cuyAZa hip??

"Bong SroLanh Oun" out now - I love you
20.05.2020 Release

This is 2nd track from my "experiment" E.P
out on May 20th, available to stream now.
----

TO SAY 'I LOVE YOU' IN KHMER LANGUAGE:
? If you are a man telling a woman that you love her, you say បងស្រឡាញ់អូន 'bong sralanyh own'
(or 'BONG SROLANH OUN').

? If you are a woman telling a man that you love him, you say អូនស្រឡាញ់បង 'own sralanyh Bong'

? In the case of same-sex lovers, the former is for if you are older than your lover and the latter is for if you are younger.
----

#PhamHongPhuoc #BongSroLanhOun #Iloveyou
----

No matter how happy we've been in a relationship, things just get more boring.

I wonder about why love fades over time.
Why we expect more from technology and less from each other, then alone together.

People are lonely. The network is seductive.
But if we are always on, we may deny ourselves the rewards of solitude.
If you fear that you spend a lot of time on social media, get the negative effects & your connected life is running away with you:
" Please read the book, reflect, talk to your family and friends." I think we deserve better than some of the places that we've gotten with this technology.

(Sherry Turkle)

----
EXCLUSIVELY ON
? Nhaccuatui
Audio: https://bit.ly/2WH74Gg
MV: https://bit.ly/2zUXCGj
? Spotify
? Apple Music
====

PHƯỚC BIẾT CÁC BẠN CÓ RẤT NHIỀU SỰ LỰA CHỌN ĐỂ GIẢI TRÍ, XIN CẢM ƠN VÌ ĐÃ CHỌN XEM VIDEO NÀY.
CÁC BẠN NHỚ SUBSCRIBE & NHẤN VÀO BIỂU TƯỢNG CHUÔNG ĐỂ CẬP NHẬP NHỮNG VIDEO MỚI NHẤT NHÉ !

? Subscribe |
http://popsww.com/phamhongphuoc

? Instagram |
https://www.instagram.com/phamhongphuocofficial/

? Fanpage |
https://www.facebook.com/songwriterphamhongphuoc
---------

[CREDITS]
Written by PHAM HONG PHUOC
Director I BIZARROS STUDIO
Produced | Mixed | Mastered
by BEFAMOUS | DILETTANTE SEOUL
====

? Lyrics
A1 |
Tình yêu là câu hỏi
Hôm nay, mình đi đâu?
Hôm nay, mình sẽ làm gì?
Tình yêu là công thức
Ăn gì đây, xem phim gì đấy?

A2 |
2 ta bên nhau, 2 chiếc phones
2 ta selfie, tay check FB
Hình như ta đã hết chuyện để nói với nhau rồi đấy!!!
Tình yêu thật nhạt lắm
Bao tin nhắn gửi nhau hằng đêm
Tình yêu là công thức
Lặp lại mãi mỗi khi ngày trôi

B |
Mình đã hết yêu nhau rồi ah?!
Mình đã chẳng hôn nhau
Mình hết nắm tay nhau rồi ah?!
Mình không sẻ chia

Chorus |
Hôm nay, mình đi đâu, ăn gì, uống gì (×3)
Ôi buồn chán thật, ôi nhạt nhẽo thật.
Hôm nay cầm tay a, cất phone túi quần (×3)
Chúng ta sẽ học cách yêu từ đầu.

BONG SROLANH OUN (×3)

Singapore has long been on my bucket list and I finally got to non-stop eat my way through the city! though there isn’t really any shopping in Singapore, the food was enough to bring me back there. Low key had 5 meals a day just to fit everything I wanted to eat into such a short trip. It was super hot and humid when I was there in the Summer but surprisingly, it felt less hot than HK. I definitely need to go back to Singapore for more good cheap eats! :(

YouTube: http:www.youtube.com/theiantang
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theiantang

All filmed on iPhone 8 plus

TURN THAT SUBSCRIBE BUTTON GREY :)

Music (in order of appearance)
1. Paradise by Ikson
Vlog No Copyright Music: Music promoted by Vlog No Copyright Music.
Video Link: https://youtu.be/glMhD3EU46k
2. Clouds by Joakim Karud http://soundcloud.com/joakimkarud
Music promoted by Audio Library https://youtu.be/YrvBTBmqVPE
3. By The Croft by Joakim Karud https://soundcloud.com/joakimkarud
Music promoted by Audio Library https://youtu.be/tnV_PH26SVU
4. Road Trip by Joakim Karud https://soundcloud.com/joakimkarud
Music promoted by Audio Library https://youtu.be/vpssnpH_H4c
5. Don't leave me here alone by Artificial.Music https://soundcloud.com/artificial-music Creative Commons — Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported— CC BY-SA 3.0 Free Download / Stream: https://bit.ly/dont-leave-me-here-alone Music promoted by Audio Library https://youtu.be/gCeWGmRKtf8
6. Dreams by Joakim Karud https://soundcloud.com/joakimkarud
Creative Commons — Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported— CC BY-SA 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Music promoted by Audio Library https://youtu.be/VF9_dCo6JT4
7. Good For You by THBD https://soundcloud.com/thbdsultan
Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported— CC BY 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Music promoted by Audio Library https://youtu.be/-K_YSjqKgvQ