關於 may i have a seat ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

.
English translation: @benkongenglish
.
當然
我也會繼續抱持善意地思考和行動
只是需要明白
善意的行為不見得會被歡喜接受
當我讓座
是不是暗示我覺得對方年老或傷殘？
當我協助
是不是暗示我認為對方能力不足 無法勝任？
我所同情的他的缺點
或許恰好是他引以為傲的優點
我們的善意 能更小心翼翼
.
Without a doubt, I would continue to think and act benevolently.
However, we have to understand actions out of kindness are not always appreciated.
Does it mean I think the person is old or disabled when I give my seat to him?
Does it mean I think the person is incapable and can’t do the job when I offer my assistance?
The shortcomings that I empathise on may probably be the merits he takes great pride in.
We shall be more careful with our kind hearts.

Restoration for your Own Mistakes

Perhaps you are thinking, “Yes I know I can expect restoration when the devil attacks me or if I am persecuted. But I am suffering now because of my own mistake. Surely I cannot expect God to restore me? I will have to suffer and pay for my mistake.”

Well, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is called the good news because it is really undeserved favor. Even if you are suffering losses from your own mistakes, you can still expect to receive restoration that is better in quality and/or quantity than before.

I know it sounds too good to be true, but I am not just making that up. Look at Abraham’s story. He told his wife Sarah to lie to everyone in Gerar that she was only his sister.

He did this because Sarah had been renewed in her youth and was exceedingly beautiful. Abraham was afraid that if the people knew that she was his wife, they would kill him and take her for themselves.

After hearing that Sarah was only Abraham’s sister, the king of Gerar, Abimelech, took Sarah into his harem.

Reading this story, it is clear that Abraham is the one at fault. He lied that Sarah was only his sister, and his lies stemmed from cowardice and self-preservation, endangering Sarah’s chastity.

Yet, when God wanted to save Sarah from being violated, He threatened Abimelech and his family with death if he decided not to restore Sarah to Abraham.

“God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also withheld you from sinning against me. Therefore I didn’t allow you to touch her. Now therefore, restore the man’s wife. For he is a prophet, and he will pray for you, and you will live. If you don’t restore her, know for sure that you will die, you, and all who are yours.”” (Genesis‬ ‭20:6-7‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Shouldn’t it be Abraham who was threatened with death for his cowardice and lies? This is God’s Grace towards the righteous ones who are justified by faith. Even if you make a mistake, God is not punishing you for your sins—His heart is to restore you for the negative consequences of your wrong actions.

What does restore “the man’s wife” mean? Is it just to give Sarah back to Abraham? Let us examine what Abimelech did:

“Abimelech took sheep and cattle, male servants and female servants, and gave them to Abraham, and restored Sarah, his wife, to him. Abimelech said, “Behold, my land is before you. Dwell where it pleases you.” To Sarah he said, “Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver. Behold, it is for you a covering of the eyes to all that are with you. In front of all you are vindicated.”” (Genesis‬ ‭20:14-16‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Wow, instead of just giving Sarah back to Abraham, Abimelech gave sheep, cattle, servants, land and a thousand pieces of silver to Abraham. Even though Abraham was the originator of the problem, he was enriched through his mistake.

This is what God’s restoration looks like. You never just get the same thing back. It will always be better in quality and/or quantity when He restores you for your losses.

Even though Abraham made mistakes in his life, he had a great relationship with God, such that the Scriptures call him “a friend of God”. Whenever God appeared and spoke to him, he paid attention, delighting in the words and meditated on them.

An example of this would be God’s promise to him that he would have a son who was born of Sarah. Abraham never gave up on that promise, and eventually, he received the fulfillment of it.

“Blessed is the man who doesn’t walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand on the path of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in Yahweh’s law. On his law he meditates day and night. He will be like a tree planted by the streams of water, that produces its fruit in its season, whose leaf also does not wither. Whatever he does shall prosper.” (Psalms‬ ‭1:1-3‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Although we are born-again and our spirits are righteous, holy and perfect like Jesus, we still live in this body of sinful flesh. Sometimes we get confused, thinking that the fleshly impulses and thoughts are our own. This causes us to make mistakes.

However, if you have a heart for God’s word like Abraham did, even the mistakes you unwittingly make will prosper. What you did may not be good, but God can still turn things around for your good because He is for you, not against you. Since you are righteous in Christ, you can expect to receive restoration for your losses, even if they were caused by your own mistakes!

Learn God’s plan to prosper you in all things through His restoration. If you have lost in any way, you can expect to gain much more/better back. This eBook, “All Things Made New”, may be the most comprehensive book about God’s restoration:
https://bit.ly/prosper-through-restoration

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”

ROOFTOPMOB -【Salmon Freestyle】(Official Audio)
-
ROOFTOPMOB首張團體完整專輯【REEF】Officially Out Now !!
Available on iTunes, Apple Music : https://music.apple.com/tw/album/reef/1544228717?l=en
Listen on Spotify : https://open.spotify.com/track/3t78WOWobxEUoDl4rcRnAH
KKBOX : https://kkbox.fm/dshF2t?utm_source=share&utm_medium=song&utm_campaign=RooftopMob+-+SALMON+FREESTYLE
|
Presented by ｜ ROOFTOPMOB
Artist ｜ Zashō / LICKONE / Aminato / Saxer / Zac Rao
Beat Arranger ｜ Zac Rao
Composer & Lyricist ｜ Zashō / LICKONE / Aminato / Saxer / Zac Rao
Producer ｜ Zashō / LICKONE / Aminato / Saxer / Zac Rao
Recording x Mixing ｜ Zac Rao
Mastering ｜ Zac Rao
Mastering Studio ｜ 金剛門大樹林工作室
Photographer ｜ Kenalwayscan
Album Art Designer ｜ LICKONE
;
[ROOFTOPMOB]
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/rooftopmob_official/
Soundcloud : https://soundcloud.com/rooftopmob
StreetVoice : https://streetvoice.com/Rooftopmob/
[Follow Members]
Zashō : https://www.instagram.com/rooftopmob_zasho/
LICKONE : https://www.instagram.com/rooftopmob_lickone/
Aminato : https://www.instagram.com/rooftopmob_aka_aminato/
Saxer : https://www.instagram.com/rooftopmob_saxer/
Zac Rao : https://www.instagram.com/rooftopmob_zac_rao/
Ken : https://www.instagram.com/kenalwayscan/
-
Copyrights 2020 ⓒ ROOFTOPMOB. All Rights Reserved
/
Lyrics :
[Verse 1: Zashō]
他們是自私的掠食者 端了就走
歌詞鑲金 堵盲從的口
沒根據畫一塊意象的餅
哪裡管吃相多貪婪的醜
“Never go back! We have to step forward!”
Yeah I’ve heard you said, before
想像的生活 全權他人琢磨
套公式當然能輕鬆的過
只管放縱
Woah 沒興趣談以後
那種多美的夢
拿來塞誰牙縫 nah
(Yeah i go)
滿街都是 遊蕩的鬼魂 可不是每個鬼都寫作
於是呢有些鬼發明了『我們』 有些鬼能以此對號入座
羊群走進 早被人鯨吞的空
要你舉起 潔白的旗 抖的手
到頭來你那所謂的公
還是給不公的他們虛構
抱歉了朋友
親愛的朋友
血統不純正的連門都沒有
懂了嗎
你要當誰的朋友？

[Verse 2: LICKONE]
I can imagine how much I left
Waiting good timing for the city collapse
I bet your life just a joke that’s a fact
Matter fact I gonna put a middle finger on your face
Say
Fuck off, god damn
Work hard, get paid
Blue pill, red pill
I’m afraid of taking both pills
No deals
You better sit tie with your seat belts
No kills
Needles got me into sedative
Blood line working on relatives
Speaking thru my vines you see me I don’t even lie
While you’ve wonder all the night, I’m just over qualify.
Working for the dead president,
Check on my face
I just try to wait for great candidate,
We made some clams
Someday I might shine brighter than the betelgeuse, untouchable
You can’t even leave your comfort zone, unbreachable uh

[Verse 3: Aminato]
Yeah, look at my eyes’ Red like a Man
腦袋裝著Method 創了規則 from zero to the Tang(ten)
看看我們一群煞星帶著鬼臉wow
弱者被我們的口水淹沒 illumanati們全都訝異
看Makaveli仍在視線中
我不同於那些愛亂插隊的crap滿嘴婊子and hoe
聽聽我feel the Tammy still loyal to Ri girl 脫離weed的病與痛
誰管你動作多黑呀手勢多飛皮膚還是Asian boy, make some noises
支持你幻想may be a GOAT 抱歉我在地下平衡輕與重
Born again 戴上皇冠 fit on triple X
名字冠上Dot K, Fuck Kanye
想上位 Like Terry Guo
假的領導讓土地被血洗過
這裡No Man only for TK
為了鈔票再多飛幾遍
繼續簽約能多活幾年
無知的weak ass別想玩音樂

[Verse 4: Saxer]
形象是湊合拼成
稱產量驚人但內容月經文
拿膚色自欺欺人
自立新精門高唱龍的傳人
大喊愛嘻哈精神 卻因話題敏感
全都被噤聲
擅長製造娛樂新聞
圈子士氣低沈
氣到他媽想揍人
詞句虛偽不中肯
你想當另一個姚忠仁
祈禱話題咬中了
終於能上綜藝大熱門
結果進公司 老闆說要重審
請了打手幫你寫副歌
在地下拿AK47 出道怎就變AKB了
如果是個普通人只能怪自己沒天份
唱rap不打破度量衡那你乾脆去扒糞
曾經你的歌我也唱著 字字噴出銷魂的彈殼
如今像個大背叛者爛到植物人都起來哭了

[Verse 5: Zac]
妳看我 WOW WOW 錢包變成 泡泡 (WOW)
非常 糟糕 看著帳單 哇靠 (WOW)
看我 WOW WOW 錢包變成 泡泡 (WOW)
非常 糟糕 看著帳單 哇靠 (WOW)
我的寶貝 每天搞得我好累
誰在搞鬼 穿得一點都不高貴
不能買便宜的包包要你變得騷包都超貴
受不了妳的嘮叨 我搞到自己都不能消費
當我小鬼 沒錯 妳很嬌貴 我默默把收據銷毀 我的寶貝 過來幫妳量腰圍
不要擔心 回去坐好妳的寶位
妳看我 WOW WOW 錢包變成 泡泡 (WOW)
非常 糟糕 看著帳單 哇靠 (WOW)
看我 WOW WOW 錢包變成 泡泡 (WOW)
非常 糟糕 看著帳單 哇靠 (WOW)

Dumb Ways to Die is the theme song of the public service announcement campaign released by Metro Trains in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia to promote railway safety. Both the song and the campaign went viral briefly in November 2012 and received worldwide acclaim for its effectiveness, endearing and engaging quality. The song and campaign have grown so well-loved that the characters continue to be recognisable and have come to be featured in a video and mobile games including Dumb Ways to Die, Dumb Ways to Die 2: The Games, and Dumb Ways to Die 3: World Tour.

This video contains the parody I've created for the song Dumb Ways to Die, cover on Dumb Ways to Die, Dumb Ways to Die parody, Dumb Ways to Die cover. My cover and parody have been inspired by the recent global health emergency, global health crisis caused by the rise of coronavirus, the spread of coronavirus in 2019, the spread of coronavirus (also called the Wuhan virus) in 2020 that is said to have originated from Wuhan, China.

Dumb Ways to Die was written by John Mescall with music by Ollie McGill from The Cat Empire, who also produced it. It was performed by Emily Lubitz, the lead vocalist of Tinpan Orange, with McGill providing backing vocals. The band on the recording consists of Gavin Pearce on Bass, Danny Farrugia on drums and Brett Wood on guitar. It was released on iTunes, attributed to the artist "Tangerine Kitty" (a reference to Tinpan Orange and The Cat Empire). I do not own any legal right to the song, I am simply covering it for entertainment and education purposes.

In this song, you’ll learn some useful tips on how to maintain good personal hygiene and avoid contracting the coronavirus / wuhan virus.

Dumb Ways to Die （笨笨的死法 或 蠢蠢的死法）是一首2012年由澳洲都市鐵路推出的一首廣告歌，在2012年這首歌一炮而紅，網民瘋狂分享這段影片，因為歌曲好聽，動畫也非常可愛。這首笨笨的死法的改歌是我受最近武漢肺炎時間啟發而創作的，推出除了希望幫助我的學生透過歌詞學習英文外，也能提高公眾的衛生意識，同心抗疫。

Lyrics 歌詞:

Cover up that toilet seat 把廁所蓋起來
Pour water in the bathroom drain 把水倒進廁所去水渠
Wear facial masks when you go out 出外時戴口罩
Change to a different one the second time around 第二次戴就要換個新的

Coronavirus 冠狀病毒
Don’t catch the coronavirus 別染上冠狀病毒
Coronavirus 冠狀病毒
Don’t catch the coronavirus 別染上冠狀病毒

Rub your two hands with alcohol 用酒精搓手
Stay at home n watch videos 留在家看影片
Keep your household sparkling clean 保持家居清潔
Don’t hang around in any overcrowded place 不要在人多擠逼處流連

Coronavirus 冠狀病毒
Don’t catch the coronavirus 別染上冠狀病毒
Coronavirus 冠狀病毒
Don’t catch the Coronavirus 別染上冠狀病毒

Take a walk in the hospital 到醫院走一轉
Share a lift with a feverish man 和發燒的人乘同一架電梯
Take your face mask off in public space 在公眾地方除口罩
Use a steamed mask as if it's just unboxed 把蒸過的口罩當成全新的使用

If you’ve done them all 如果你都做過以上的每一件事
You might as well catch the virus 你很可能會染上冠狀病毒
Coronavirus 冠狀病毒
Don’t catch the coronavirus 別染上冠狀病毒

Get plenty of good sleep 要有充足睡眠
Stay updated with the news on Internet 在網上留意最新消息
Stuff yourself with vitamin C 多吃維他命C
I wonder if the vaccine’d work? 我在想，那疫苗有效嗎？

Coronavirus 冠狀病毒
Don’t catch the coronavirus 別染上冠狀病毒
Coronavirus 冠狀病毒
Don’t catch the coronavirus 別染上冠狀病毒

Stop the high-speed train from Wuhan, China 別讓中國武漢的高鐵列車進來
Stop the flood of tourists from coming in 別讓旅客擁進來
Never Eat beavers, porcupine, and wild bats 不要吃河狸，刺蝟和野蝙蝠
Wash your two hands with soap for 20 seconds 洗手洗足二十秒
Wash them after you go to the loo 去完廁所後要洗手

They may not rhyme, but they quite possibly 這些方法也許不押韻，但它們很可能可以⋯⋯
Will help you stay alive 幫助你生存下去
Will help you stay alive 幫助你生存下去
Stay healthy and alive 幫助你健康生存下去
So many ways, so many ways to stay alive 有很多方法，有很多方法生存下去


My new English channel ► http://bit.ly/tiffanysuen-youtube

訂閱與芬尼學英語 ► http://bit.ly/flayt-sub

喜歡我們的短片嗎？到 Patreon 支持我們！ ► http://bit.ly/fla-patreon

歡迎提供字幕 :)

▍播放清單：
今天只學一個字 ► http://bit.ly/2DRQPgE
名人英語 ► http://bit.ly/2EUc8QO
時事英語 ► http://bit.ly/2RqrMok
語文知識 ► http://bit.ly/2GzuW8b
Word Pairs 怎樣分 ► http://bit.ly/2hS1MCF
品牌名學英語 ► http://bit.ly/2qd3mUq
朗誦節特訓 ► http://bit.ly/2PBqZno

▍Follow 芬尼：
● Instagram: http://bit.ly/fla-instagram
● Facebook: http://bit.ly/fla-facebook
● Twitter: http://bit.ly/fla-twitter
● 訂閱電子報：http://bit.ly/fla-nl
● 收聽 Podcasts：https://apple.co/2OwMPpK (Apple Podcasts) / https://spoti.fi/3g2KChF (Spotify)
● Blog: http://bit.ly/fla-blog
● Pinterest: http://bit.ly/fla-pinterest

▍成人常規班
課程簡介 ► http://bit.ly/fla-courses

▍成人英語再起步 課程
簡介 video ► https://youtu.be/3-Sx5JwjokU
開班日期、詳情 及 報名表格 ► http://bit.ly/成人英語再起步

▍初中、高小英文班
簡介 video ► https://youtu.be/Ug2zWrbWpeI
詳情 及 預約試堂表格 ► https://forms.gle/3mABQFBrFpqawRTQ8

Free stuff!!! :)
● Use my iHerb Discount Code: ASC7218
● Sign up at AirBnb and get HKD$290 in travel credit: https://www.airbnb.com/c/tiffanys213
● Get a FREE first Uber ride (up to HK$50): https://www.uber.com/invite/tiffanys2213ue
● Get TWO months of free SkillShare premium:
https://skl.sh/2IIHhr8
● Get HKD$100 of credit to spend across your next 4 orders at Deliveroo: https://roo.it/tiffanyccs
● Get HKD$100 off your order at NOSH:
TIFH437

#wuhan #coronavirus #英文歌

All My JDM Ferrari Videos? https://bit.ly/3aictaD
EXCLUSIVE Merchandise on StevesPOV.com FREE Shipping too! Limited quantities available!

It doesn't matter what language you may speak or what country you are from, if you love trucks that love seems be universal. The sounds they make and how they look are appealing to everyone.... I've always loved trucks ever since I was a kid watching Smokey and the Bandit over and over again! My son has grown up liking trucks and more importantly Respecting trucks and their drivers! Over the years I have learned that trucks are truly a universal language and I have become friends with truck drivers in the USA and Japan. My friend Justin from Plycar was nice enough to let me get into the back of his big truck to see how modern technologies are helping with hauling very expensive cars like DDE Dave's Lambo, Alex Choi's McLaren and My 458Liberty Walk Ferrari. He was also kind enough to let me into his driver seat and sleeper cab too, as Ashley, his wife and partner on the road, shows me what life in a big truck on the road is like! Thank you so much Justin, Ashley and Plycar!

JP Campbell @plycarjp
Plycar @plycontransportationgroup

Ferrari build supported by:
Tuned by Surrey Engineering @surreyengineering
Air Suspension Support: @ChassisFab
Big Johns Performance @bigjohnsperformance
FI Exhaust @fiexhaust
Azzurre Motoring @azzurekimoto
Design and Artwork @Skepple
Wrap @ProtectiveFilmSolutions
Wheels @HREwheels @hre_wheels_japan
Lights: @ofcustoms ALPHA Restyling @alpharestyling
Liqui Moly Oils: @liquimolyjapan @liquimoly.usa.canada
Mechanical: @germanautospecialist.inc @avant_garde_xotics
Carbon Paddles: @carbontastic

Steve's POV / Thumbs Up Shop:
https://www.stevespov.com

Steve's POV Amazon Japan Store:
https://amzn.to/2J1lHyu

Top 5 Recent Videos:

Screwed Over in Beverly Hills "Samurai" Food Truck
https://youtu.be/pGMiocrrSGA

I Bought Another Truck... This Time in Japan!!
https://youtu.be/JhjlRNHJ6IU

THIS YOU MUST TRY IN TOKYO!! Japanese Yakitori
https://youtu.be/pReaO12xp0o

Reviving My Datsun 240z Project Ferrari Brakes
https://youtu.be/gnQIqnyXCyE

Japanese Toilet Hospitality OMOTENASHI in Public Restrooms
https://youtu.be/QjB6N7hMiDQ

All videos presented in both Japan and English.

New Releases Every MONDAY & WEDNESDAY & FRIDAY 3PM PST

◆PLEASE SUBSCRIBE◆
http://www.youtube.com/user/steevie333?sub_confirmation=1

Please visit my sites:
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/StevesPOV
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/StevesPOV
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/StevesPOV
Ebay Store: https://ebay.to/2JjAKTU
StevesPOV Web: http://www.StevesPOV.com
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/shop/stevespov

Steve's POV Real Estate Instagram
http://www.instagram.com/carsncastles

Steve Feldman “Steve’s POV” Realtor (Keller Williams) website
https://stevefeldmanrealtor.com

Music from Epidemic Sound
http://www.epidemicsound.com

Steve's POV
スティーブ的視点

#StevesPOV #plycartransport #bigtruck #truckdriver #carhauler