關於 2019 must read ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

[生活美語] 同學有看過Bag to Earth*這種廚餘回收袋嗎？

在溫哥華第一次見到!

這些袋子完全都是用裝廚餘的可生物分解紙做的；這種由可再生材料製成的紙張為堆肥過程添加了所需的營養，因而使得有機食物的垃圾循環更具效率。透過連結可以閱讀更多有關袋子的資訊：https://www.bagtoearth.com/about

The bags are made entirely of biodegradable paper and are used to hold kitchen waste/food scraps (廚餘). This makes the organic food waste cycle more efficient as the paper, made from renewable and sustainable resources, adds needed nutrients to the composting process. You can read more about the bags here: https://www.bagtoearth.com/about

★★★★★★★★★★★★

在台灣，我們使用塑膠袋裝廚餘。而這些袋子會被回收、還是被燒？我們多少的廚餘會變成肥料或是用來餵豬？這個過程的效率如何？我們應該如何做以減少食物浪費並降低回收過程的環境成本？這些是當探討環境污染時，我們應該思考的一些問題。

In Taiwan, we use plastic bag to hold our kitchen waste. Are these bags recycled or burned? How much of our kitchen waste is turned into fertilizer or pig feed? How efficient is the process? How can we reduce food waste and lower the environmental costs of our recycling processes? Some questions to think about when discussing environmental pollution.

★★★★★★★★★★★★

Key words:

•kitchen waste/food scraps 廚餘
•biodegradable 可生物分解的
•compostable 可堆肥的
•compost 混合肥料；堆肥
•organic fertilizer 有機肥料
https://www.gardeningchannel.com/compost-vs-fertilizer-explained/
•plastic particles 塑膠顆粒
•nutrients 營養素
•the composting process 堆肥的過程
•renewable and sustainable resources 可再生及永續資源
•raw materials 原料
•eco-certification 環保認證
•contaminate 污染
•environmental sustainability 環境永續
•forest management policies 森林管理政策
•enrich garden soil 使花園的土壤更肥沃
•pig feed (n.) 豬食、餵豬吃的
•reduce garbage 減少垃圾量
•lower production costs 降低生產成本
•incinerate 焚燒、焚化
•bury in a landfill 埋在垃圾掩埋場
•the food waste problem 食物浪費問題
•food self-sufficiency 食物自給自足
•waste treatment 廢物處理
•economic incentive 經濟誘因

*Bag to Earth 這個商標可能是出於 Give back to Earth (回饋地球) 或 Return to the soil (回到土地)的概念。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

相關文章:

Bag to Earth
https://www.bagtoearth.com/about

Bag to Earth makes composting a pleasure
https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/courier-archive/living/bag-to-earth-makes-composting-a-pleasure-yes-really-3107819

In Taiwan, leftover food scraps help farmers sustain porky appetites
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/mar/23/taiwan-food-waste-pork-production-farming-recycling-environment

Taiwan’s food waste must be addressed
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2019/12/01/2003726744

Yesterday has been an emotional rollercoaster ride for me, with my health starting to decline again and struggling to get a good night’s sleep coping with the pain. Feeling restless to keep up with the renovation work at #TheOldForgeCottage 🏡

And then to make it worse, woke up in the morning with sad news from Malaysia…my brother-in-law, his wife and their 2 little children have tested positive for #coronavirus! I can’t help but think how they’re going to manage their 2 kids when they themselves are unwell. I’ve been unwell myself for so many years and I know how hard it is to juggle in between your illness and to care for your children. And when I came across the news of @sitisarahraissuddin my heart just sank for her husband @shuibsepahtu and their kids…😭

On top of that, whenever I read the news or scroll through social media, reading all those sad news of people losing their loved ones every day makes me so emotional…I cried. My heart trembled. The memory of losing my beloved brother Adamdidam 2 years ago came back haunting me. I can still remember the feelings. It feels just like yesterday. It still feels raw. I can still remember that day, we were all getting ready to pray Maghrib when the phone rang. As soon as I saw the number on the screen, I panicked. It’s my father’s number from Malaysia. And the fact that it’s not even Fajr time yet in Malaysia, I knew right away that something must be wrong! That’s when we lost our beloved @adamdidam 💔

May Allah grant a complete healing to those who are fighting any type of illnesses and blessed us all with a long, healthy and quality life. If you’re feeling down, heartbroken, unwell, grieving, fighting your illness, or in any difficulty and you’re reading this…please know that my thoughts and prayers are with you! Please know that you are not alone - have faith - The Almighty is always with you 🤍

Love,
Mrs Mom
#wisemomsays

p/s: This is the last song The Omar Mukhtar, Fatimah & Ali recorded for their beloved Mamajee @adamdidam on 17th April 2019…but now we’re reposting this as a special dedication to all of you wonderful people out there - #YouAreTheReason ♥️

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”

This is my first time to explore Chuncheon in Korea, and I am going to share with you the first attraction in #Chuncheon that you should pay a visit - #Soyanggang #Skywalk. READ MORE: http://www.tianchad.com/2019/11/soyanggang-skywalk-chuncheon-at-night.html

Soyanggang Skywalk, which located in Chuncheon is an observatory attraction spot on Uiamho Lake. The bridge will stretch out all the way for a total distance of 174 meters to the lake, and the glass floor beneath is actually transparent! This makes Soyanggang Skywalk the longest glass structure ever built in the country.

Soyanggang Skywalk is very beautiful at night. I love it colorful and enjoying a cup of coffee under the cold weather is actually pretty relaxing and memorable

READ MORE: http://www.tianchad.com/2019/11/soyanggang-skywalk-chuncheon-at-night.html

Song: Mata Ke Hati (Acoustic Version) - Hivi!


If you've liked this video, remember to Like and Share it around! It helps a lot! =D
喜欢的话，记得订阅按赞然都打开小铃铛

【???? + ????? + ???????? ?? ????????】
http://bit.ly/TianChadYT

***********************
FOLLOW ME ON:
Website: www.TianChad.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/tianchad
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/tianchad
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/tianchad

SUPPORT ME THROUGH:
PATREON - https://www.patreon.com/tianchad

#東京淺草雷門Ozeki超市 #營養標籤指引 #陪著你嘔 #KaminarimonGate #ozekiAsakusa #日式超市 #淺草平價旅館 #東京淺草酒店推薦 #日本超市採購推薦清單

請用片右下角調4K睇片。
Hello大家好,我係呀Tsar, 今日介紹東京淺草的超市食品,因為淺草時東京旅客必到的地方,這裏除了雷門給大家打卡之外, 週邊還有很多平價旅館喎平價超市,今日就介紹這間雷門斜對面的平價超市 Ozeki,
,面積雖不算大, 但產品多樣化和便宜,如果你的行程安排得密密麻麻, 這間超市你一定不能錯過,今日先介紹五件必買食品, 還會分享如何閱讀營養標籤, Are u ready?第一必買, Sonton 朱古力麵包醬, 如果不懂看日文,你可先買回家, 用條脷去試試味,「公」欲善其事, 必識用條脷, 男人就最本事啦, 練到條脷識轉彎,搞到你老婆官人我要, 食過返尋味,
官人我再要, 我意思指搽朱古力醬多士...............

又諗衰嘢, 你班西門吹雪!這個甜味很自然, 跟麵包絕配

另一隻搽麵包醬, 我推介這個芝麻醬

平時煮餸落幾滴麻油已經很香, 三育黑芝麻醬

香甜濃郁, 柔滑順喉, 食黑芝麻有助烏黑頭髮補鈣

每樽含56000粒黑芝麻的養份

在這裏, 我想跟大家分享如何閱讀營養標籤

一般營養標籤有1+7的元素

1是能量, 7種指定標示的營養素

包括蛋白質、總脂肪、飽和脂肪、反式脂肪、碳水化合物、糖和鈉

看營養標籤有三個步驟, 第一次要留意標籤上的食物參考量

每一次食用份量serving size, 再看每個包裝所含食用份量no. of serving per container/Package
例如, serving size五塊餅乾(50g) , serving per package 是3

換言之, 你吃完這個食物, 可以分三次, 每次大概是五塊餅乾

如果你一次過食曬, 受傷等於五乘三的營養

大家一齊看看如何選擇一隻冇咁肥的餅乾吧:

A牌子餅乾, 每食用份量50 g, 含有八克脂肪

D牌子每食用份量35.5 g, 含有7g 脂肪

首先, 你應該根據相同食物份量(e.g 100g食物)

換算兩者的脂肪含量, 在作出比較

左手面條formula, 100g/50gx 8g脂肪 =16g脂肪

右手邊D牌子餅乾, 100g/35.5gx 7g脂肪 =20g脂肪

即時相同食物份量, 大家都是100克的餅乾

A牌子較為D牌子的餅乾少於4g脂肪

如果想食得冇咁肥, 就選擇A牌子

第二個步驟, 要看能量、營養素含量和食物參考量

1+7 , 1是能量, 攝取過多, 除了容易肥, 還會增加心臟病風險

食物能量單位以(千卡)或(千焦), 1千卡大約相等4.2千焦, 有時兩項都會標示

專家建議每人每日一般吸取2000千卡至2500千卡的能量就夠

另外總脂肪、飽和脂肪、反式脂肪和糖, 每日攝取量亦有quota

2000千卡的營養膳食為例, 這些營養素每日是有上限的:

總脂肪 ≤ 60g、飽和脂肪 ≤20g、反式脂肪≤ 2.2g 、糖≤50g

至於鈉 ≤ 2000mg 毫克, 蛋白質大約60g, 碳水化合物要夠300g

其他營養素、膳食纖維 ≥ 25g, 鈣≥ 800mg、維他命C≥ 100mg、膽固醇≤300mg

計算由食物攝取的能量和營養素, 有助您精明選擇較健康的飲食

e.g A牌子per serving (5塊餅乾, 有8克脂肪, 218千克能量)

如果食十塊餅乾, 就變double, 即時攝取了436千卡的能量和16克脂肪
相反, 如果你只吃一塊餅乾, 就是218千卡除5一塊餅乾

根據每日總脂肪少於或等於60克脂肪, 你還有quota, 明白嗎?

第三步驟, 參考營養素參考值百分比(%NRV)

有些產品沒有數這個數字, Not a MUST, but nice to know.

數值由0至100%不等。 對於需要限制攝取的營養素

例如總脂肪、飽和脂肪、糖和鈉, 應該選擇營養數值百分比偏低的產品

如果健康營養素, e.g. 膳食纖維....這個數值越大越好。

第二必買, 這個鹽麴調味料, 日本人善用鹽麴作醃漬蔬菜和魚的調味料已經有很長久歷史

鹽麴內含菌營養價值豐富維他命b群, 除了對食物能夠提鮮

亦能提升免疫力、消除疲勞、有助腸臟、抗氧化

美容產品也用得到, 難怪很少見到皮膚差的日本人

麴菌可以軟化肉質、改變肉質更有風味

下次醃食物, 可以取代鹽, 難怪日本人拍AV

卷席全球, 因為他們真的對鹹味好有研究!

第三必買, 是天長食品公司出品的無添加、無色素的麻油

低溫壓榨一番, 一番搾意思是最多能夠保持最初的營養價值

含豐富的omega-3, 保養眼睛環保持記憶力有明顯幫助

可以調味沙律, 我平日煲飯, 洗完米加兩滴麻油、一小撮鹽才去煲飯

煲出來的飯特別香滑, 金絲雀、金絲雀、金色美麗似鳳

做女人要貴養, 貴不一定是錢, 要很花時間去研究

你識食得健康, 人自然會美麗, 氣質由麻油經皮膚滲透出來

第四必買, 萬字牌豆乳火鍋湯底, 帶有豆乳香的甜味

用豆漿和高湯調成的火鍋湯底, 香濃鮮甜, 食完不會上火

滋潤美容, 深受日本女性歡迎, 我這個月就已經有兩餐火鍋飯局了

遲些影幾張相放在youtube社群給大家分享, 當我沒有時間剪片

都會在社群分享一下我生活點滴, 大家可以去看看

第五必買, 兩款零食, 男人用來送啤酒睇波就最適合

如果你老公囉嗦你一日買無謂嘢塞滿雪櫃

你一於買這個零食塞住他的口, 你一邊做facial坐在他旁邊陪伴睇波

服務他少少零食, 當他是大爺一樣, 間中攞隻腳撩佢,

練習下撩陰腿, 輕力嗰隻, 並非打跆拳道那種

那樣他就會給你搞到硬曬, 成個人硬曬!哪裏硬曬?!

夫妻相處之道, 貴乎陪伴

陪著你嘔, 一生一世也不分, 天天都嘔, 認真好瞓

過青山、過香港, 來嘔! 嘔到我冇晒新衫

我倆繼續互相撩陰, 跟手入房搞嘢

下條片見, 記得留表情符號支持, 88!
http://yt1.piee.pw/L9XJE

Hello, everyone. I am introducing Asakusa supermarket in Tokyo today. Because Asakusa is a MUST go for Tokyo travellers. There are many cheap hotels and supermarkets around Kaminarimon Gate. Ozeki is a cheap supermarket opposite to Kaminarimon Gate. The products are diversified and cheap even it is not a huge size of this supermarket. If your schedule is tight, this supermarket is a good choice. Let me 1st introduce 5 best buy items and share how to read nutrition labels. Are u ready? The 1st best buy is Sonton chocolate paste. If you can't read Japanese, u can buy it home first, try it with your tongue. If you want to do something good, you must know how to use it. Men know it well for using tongue. Some of your tongue can even twist and turn that make your wife want it more and more. I mean the bread with chocolate paste u made to her.

USEFUL TRAVEL PHRASES IN MANDARIN 🙌👍😀
In this lesson, you'll learn some useful travel phrases in Mandarin

Useful travel phrases in Mandarin. In today’s lesson, you’re going to learn the most useful travel phrases in Mandarin so you can speak Mandarin while travel in China and Taiwan. 


WANNA LEVEL UP YOUR CHINESE?
COME JOIN MY PROGRAMS! 

Taking your Chinese to the next level, building the solid foundation of Mandarin Chinese here with SMART Mandarin

Online Chinese Courses- Get LIFE-TIME ACCESS to the courses
(Video lesson + eBook+ Podcast + Exclusive webinar + Support Community)
https://smart-mandarin.teachable.com/courses

Support SMART Mandarin on Patreon - Monthly subscription
(Video lesson + eBook+ Podcast + Exclusive webinar + Support Community)
https://www.patreon.com/smartmandarin

Join our SMART MANDARIN SUPPORT COMMUNTY!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/smartmandarinsupportcommunity/


Follow me on Instagram:
smart_mandarin_katrina_lee

Follow My Public Webinar (LIVE Training) Schedule
https://www.crowdcast.io/katrinalee

Questions about my courses?
smartmandarinchinese@gmail.com (Katrina Lee)


SUGGEST VIDEOS :)

CHINESE DAILY USE SENTENCES FOR BEGINNERS 2019 🙌🤗📚
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3I5WY_AmWU&t=289s



SUPER EASY Mandarin Playlist
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzs-lvWtTKsHL3Ekq1mQIiBsjBMeHcTyU

HSK1 playlist
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzs-lvWtTKsH-tNLdbdMIoPmfM3K3AtNp




#travelchinese #beginnerschinese #travelphrase

https://youtu.be/SXEO4PkvXpc