關於 25 years is called ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

🖐🏽 五分鐘，Ken帶您看懂國際大小事— 🇦🇫
📰 See how Afghanistan looked like before the Taliban ever came to power
🀄 看看塔利班上台之前阿富汗的景象

The war-torn Afghanistan was once peaceful where women could freely roam(漫步;遊蕩) around the streets in dresses. Afghanistan as seen in William Podlich's photographs is almost unrecognizable(無法辨認的).

📌 飽受戰爭蹂躪的阿富汗曾經是和平的，女性可以穿著裙子在街上自由漫步。在威廉·波德利希 (William Podlich) 的照片中看到的阿富汗幾乎無法辨認。

The Taliban emerged(出現) in 1994 around the southern Afghan city of Kandahar. It originally drew members from so-called “mujahideen” fighters who, with support from the United States, repelled(擊退) Soviet forces in the 1980s.

📌 1994 年，塔利班在阿富汗南部城市坎大哈附近出現。它最初吸引了所謂的“聖戰者”戰士的成員，他們在美國的支持下於 1980 年代擊退了蘇聯軍隊。

Within the space of two years, the Taliban had gained sole control over most of the country, proclaiming(宣布) an Islamic emirate(酋長國) in 1996 with a harsh interpretation(詮釋) of Islamic law. From 1996 to 2001, the Taliban enforced a strict version of Sharia law. Women were predominantly(佔優勢地) barred from working or studying, and were confined to their homes unless accompanied by a male guardian(監護人).

📌 在兩年的時間裡，塔利班獲得了對該國大部分地區的唯一控制權，並於 1996 年宣佈為伊斯蘭酋長國，並對伊斯蘭法律進行了嚴厲的解釋。從 1996 年到 2001 年，塔利班執行了嚴格的伊斯蘭教法。婦女主要被禁止工作或學習，除非有男性監護人陪同，否則她們只能待在家裡。

The US invaded Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks(攻擊), which had been planned and carried out by Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida while it was sheltering(避難) under Taliban rule.

📌 美國在 9/11 襲擊事件後入侵阿富汗，9/11 襲擊是由奧薩馬·本·拉登的基地組織在塔利班統治下避難時計劃和進行的。

The war-torn Afghanistan was once peaceful before the Taliban's first takeover(接管). A country where women -- Afghans and foreigners -- could freely roam(漫遊) around the streets in dresses.

📌 在塔利班第一次接管之前，飽受戰爭蹂躪的阿富汗曾經是和平的。在這個國家婦女——阿富汗人和外國人——可以穿著裙子在街上自由漫步。

塔利班政權之前的阿富汗社會

1. Afghan girls attended school
阿富汗女孩上學

2. Women could roam around freely
女人可以自由地四處遊蕩

3. Women and men travelled together
女人和男人一起旅行

4. Peaceful place for tourists
遊客的寧靜之地

5. Bustling capital of cars
繁華的汽車之都

6. 'Times were more gentle back then'
'那時的時代更加溫和'

7.Co-education was normal
男女同校很正常

資料來源: https://reurl.cc/R0xG86

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”

The Creation : The Earth is a Witness --- Genesis (創世記) 1 - 2 : 3

創造--來自地球的見證 --- The Author of The Genesis --- Moses (摩西)

Watch "The Creation: The Earth is a Witness," a day-by-day account of the biblical creation week, beginning with darkness before God created light and ending with Moses, the author of the Genesis account of creation, and his son, worshiping God on the seventh-day Sabbath.
「創造--來自地球的見證」，是一部有關上帝創造的影片。在此影片中，創世記的作者摩西向他兒子講述，上帝如何用六天的時間創造萬物，並在第七日安息，定為聖日。

Seventh-day Adventist filmmaker Henry Stober spent four years filming the movie around the world.
此影片由基督復臨安息日會製片人 Henry Stober 歷經四年時間，在世界各地取景拍攝製作。

影片拍攝優美，背景音樂震撼，使觀眾身歷其境地感受到上帝創造的偉大，以及祂對人深切的愛。

Hebrews (希伯來書) 11 : 1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
信就是所望之事的實底，是未見之事的確據。

Hebrews (希伯來書) 11 : 3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
我們因著信，就知道諸世界是藉神話造成的；這樣，所看見的，並不是從顯然之物造出來的。

John (約翰福音) 1 : 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
太初有道，道與神同在，道就是神。

John (約翰福音) 1 : 2
The same was in the beginning with God.
這道太初與神同在。

John (約翰福音) 1 : 3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
萬物是藉著他造的；凡被造的，沒有一樣不是藉著他造的。

Genesis (創世記) 1 : 1 - 26
1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
起初，神創造天地。

2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
地是空虛混沌，淵面黑暗；神的靈運行在水面上。

3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
神說：「要有光」，就有了光。

4) And God saw the light, that good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
神看光是好的，就把光暗分開了。

5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
神稱光為「晝」，稱暗為「夜」。有晚上，有早晨，這是頭一日。

6) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
神說：「諸水之間要有空氣，將水分為上下。」

7) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which under the firmament from the waters which above the firmament: and it was so.
神就造出空氣，將空氣以下的水、空氣以上的水分開了。事就這樣成了。

😎 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
神稱空氣為「天」。有晚上，有早晨，是第二日。

9) And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry appear: and it was so.
神說：「天下的水要聚在一處，使旱地露出來。」事就這樣成了。

10) And God called the dry Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that good.
神稱旱地為「地」，稱水的聚處為「海」。神看著是好的。

11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
神說：「地要發生青草和結種子的菜蔬，並結果子的樹木，各從其類，果子都包著核。」事就這樣成了。

12) And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed # was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that good.
於是地發生了青草和結種子的菜蔬，各從其類；並結果子的樹木，各從其類；果子都包著核。神看著是好的。

13) And the evening and the morning were the third day.
有晚上，有早晨，是第三日。

14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
神說：「天上要有光體，可以分晝夜，作記號，定節令、日子、年歲，

15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
並要發光在天空，普照在地上。」事就這樣成了。

16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: the stars also.
於是神造了兩個大光，大的管晝，小的管夜，又造眾星，

17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
就把這些光擺列在天空，普照在地上，

18) And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that good.
管理晝夜，分別明暗。神看著是好的。

19) And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
有晚上，有早晨，是第四日。

20) And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
神說：「水要多多滋生有生命的物；要有雀鳥飛在地面以上，天空之中。」

21) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that good.
神就造出大魚和水中所滋生各樣有生命的動物，各從其類；又造出各樣飛鳥，各從其類。神看著是好的。

22) And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
神就賜福給這一切，說：「滋生繁多，充滿海中的水；雀鳥也要多生在地上。」

23) And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
有晚上，有早晨，是第五日。

24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
神說：「地要生出活物來，各從其類；牲畜、昆蟲、野獸，各從其類。」事就這樣成了。

25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that good.
於是神造出野獸，各從其類；牲畜，各從其類；地上一切昆蟲，各從其類。神看著是好的。

26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
神說：「我們要照著我們的形像、按著我們的樣式造人，

Genesis (創世記) 2 : 7
And the LORD God formed man the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
耶和華 神用地上的塵土造人，將生氣吹在他鼻孔裡，他就成了有靈的活人，

Genesis (創世記) 1 : 26 - 31
26) And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
使他們管理海裡的魚、空中的鳥、地上的牲畜，和全地，並地上所爬的一切昆蟲。」

27) So God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
神就照著自己的形像造人，乃是照著他的形像造男造女。

28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
神就賜福給他們，又對他們說：「要生養眾多，遍滿地面，治理這地，也要管理海裡的魚、空中的鳥，和地上各樣行動的活物。」

29) And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
神說：「看哪，我將遍地上一切結種子的菜蔬和一切樹上所結有核的果子全賜給你們作食物。

30) And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein life, every green herb for meat: and it was so.
至於地上的走獸和空中的飛鳥，並各樣爬在地上有生命的物，我將青草賜給他們作食物。」事就這樣成了。

31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
神看著一切所造的都甚好。有晚上，有早晨，是第六日。

Genesis (創世記) 2 : 1 - 3
1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
天地萬物都造齊了。

2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
到第七日，神造物的工已經完畢，就在第七日歇了他一切的工，安息了。

3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
神賜福給第七日，定為聖日；因為在這日，神歇了他一切創造的工，就安息了。

Exodus (出埃及記) 20 : 8 - 11
😎 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
「當記念安息日，守為聖日。

9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
六日要勞碌做你一切的工，

10) But the seventh day the sabbath of the LORD thy God: thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that within thy gates:
但第七日是向耶和華你神當守的安息日。這一日你和你的兒女、僕婢、牲畜，並你城裡寄居的客旅，無論何工都不可做；

11) For six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them , and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
因為六日之內，耶和華造天、地、海，和其中的萬物，第七日便安息，所以耶和華賜福與安息日，定為聖日。

https://www.facebook.com/100004221339522/posts/1936833893133970/?d=n

2021/02/06生命紀實
一個失落的天才，從小就無法睡著的人
57、555、16、Dragon heart「Light body, the temperature mode of the heart」「龍心」「光體、心臟溫度的調節」
/.原著及紀錄 王大喜

*夢見頭盔，心臟受到保護。/.原著 Nicole Marks
*Dream of helmet, heart chakra been protected. /.Origin Nicole Marks

*關鍵字：時空重塑、心臟溫度的調節、龍心、光體。
*Key words: time reform, dragon heart, light body.

*註：「光體，心臟溫度及時空的調節。 」on Podbean,
https://www.podbean.com/ei/pb-7uec2-f71c54

Dream Walker ™ : RastaWang.com

(夢行者™，醒夢人): RastaWang.com

「那時 彼得 被聖靈充滿，對他們說： 「治民的官府和長老啊，倘若今日因為在殘疾人身上所行的善事查問我們他是怎麼得了痊癒， 你們眾人和 以色列 百姓都當知道，站在你們面前的這人得痊癒是因你們所釘十字架、神叫他從死裏復活的 拿撒勒 人耶穌基督的名。 他是 你們匠人所棄的石頭， 已成了房角的頭塊石頭。 除他以外，別無拯救；因為在天下人間，沒有賜下別的名，我們可以靠着得救。」 他們見 彼得 、 約翰 的膽量，又看出他們原是沒有學問的小民，就希奇，認明他們是跟過耶穌的； 又看見那治好了的人和他們一同站着，就無話可駁。 於是吩咐他們從公會出去，就彼此商議說： 「我們當怎樣辦這兩個人呢？因為他們誠然行了一件明顯的神蹟，凡住 耶路撒冷 的人都知道，我們也不能說沒有。 惟恐這事越發傳揚在民間，我們必須恐嚇他們，叫他們不再奉這名對人講論。」 於是叫了他們來，禁止他們總不可奉耶穌的名講論教訓人。 彼得 、 約翰 說：「聽從你們，不聽從神，這在神面前合理不合理，你們自己酌量吧！ 我們所看見所聽見的，不能不說。」 官長為百姓的緣故，想不出法子刑罰他們，又恐嚇一番，把他們釋放了。這是因眾人為所行的奇事都歸榮耀與神。 原來藉着神蹟醫好的那人有四十多歲了。」
‭‭使徒行傳‬ ‭4:8-22‬ ‭CUNP-神‬‬

「Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a man who was lame and are being asked how he was healed, then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. Jesus is “ ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’ Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say. So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. “What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everyone living in Jerusalem knows they have performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it. But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them to speak no longer to anyone in this name.” Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” After further threats they let them go. They could not decide how to punish them, because all the people were praising God for what had happened. For the man who was miraculously healed was over forty years old.」
‭‭Acts‬ ‭4:8-22‬ ‭NIV‬‬

[play List]OTAKING talk English -Japan culture and animation
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1TOJRTrkimLhlsT3I_tZ5XJNh0ia_-rP

Thanks for watching the video! Subscribe to our channel for all the latest updates & videos! Motivation for English dubbing will increase.
http://urx.red/Zgf8

This video menu

00:00 This time enjoy "The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild" in a bratamori style
02:05 NETFLIX "Black Mirror"
https://www.netflix.com/watch/80131567
10:00 How to read "The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild" for 100 years
22:10 "The disaster of 100 years ago" Miracle of Hateno Fort - OTAKING talk about "The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild" story
36:55 Tour of The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild Historic Site-Abandoned riding range
40:25 Game design
45:25 Front broadcast ending

In this channel, the founder of Gainax, one of the cornerstones of Japanese animation, Toshio Okada, called "Otaking(Nerd King)", who produced the animation, explained the lesser-known Japanese culture and animation. I am.

This video was created on January 21, 2018 originally sent in Japanese, but for many people who are interested in Japanese anime, we have created dubbed audio in English.

If you are interested in this continuation, please take a look at our videos!

************************************************

If you ask a question in this comment field of this video, maybe I will talk about comments as a theme. We welcome the people who are interested in the forefront of Japanese otaku culture and those who want to hear stories of interesting animations and movies, so please subscribe our channel! If there is a good reaction, I will get better and I will do my best! Thanks!

************************************************

🔥支付寶打賞：13581883245
🔥王炳忠今日頭條：搜索「王炳忠台灣」
🔥王炳忠臉書粉專：https://www.facebook.com/bingzhong.wang
♦♦♦
The Real Threat to the US is the loss of self-confidence
──An Open Letter to Mr. Secretary Mike Pompeo

My name is Wang Ping-Chung, the spokesperson for the New Party, Taiwan’s political party. During the ongoing pandemic of the Covid-19, the enemy of all human beings, including the American people and Chinese people, is definitely the corona virus. However, as Secretary of State of the United States, you seem to consider China instead of the virus to be your enemy. It lets you do little in pandemic prevention but much in blaming the WHO and China. You have even made great efforts to politicalize the issue of public health in order to attack China, which reflects the United States’ prevailing concept of so-called China’s threat. Nevertheless, the real threat to the US is not China but the loss of self-confidence indeed.

As President Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Only thing we have to fear is the fear itself.” The threat you have to fear today is not other peoples but yourselves. Even though you have done your best to shift blames on the WHO and China, the fact is already clear of the US domestic misdiagnosed cases, which had been seen as H1N1 but in fact corona virus since last autumn. It is also your fault in underestimating the severity of the epidemic while China sacrificed itself to let the world have more preparation time. Accordingly, the Covid-19 has killed more than fifty thousand people in America. As China’s population is four times larger than the US, it is quite shocking that America’s death toll due to the Covid-19 has been above China’s.

I feel so sorry for the suffering of your people, yet it is never too late to mend. However, not only did you palm off the responsibility on others, but you also undermined international solidarity against the pandemic. Moreover, you even try to deny the status of the WHO as the coordinator for universal combat against diseases, which in some way means challenging the global institutions under the governance of the United Nations. It is so unbelievable that the United States, viewing itself as the world leader above half a century, is tending to destroy the world order recognized by the international society. The very reason I can think of is the loss of America’s self-confidence. It is the threat to both the US and the whole world.

For Liberalists in the United States, China has been believed either an opponent or a violator to international institutions. As far as it’s concerned, there had been debates whether to keep containing China economically and militarily or engaging it institutionally. Both were resulted from America’s confidence in its leadership. Consequently, the confidence gradually changed into arrogance, luring the United States into aggressions upon other countries as the global superpower without permission from the UN Security Council. It made America exhausted at last. Therefore, the United States has become an isolationist, and even a betrayer to the global institutions they established before. On the contrary, China seems more like a protector of the world order.

On the other hand, for Realists, the predominant thinkers in international politics, China has been seen as the primary rival to America. As they estimate there will be threat if any other regional hegemony occurs, the nation’s fear becomes beyond what its capability can hold. To some extent, this is the real crisis to your people. In fact, different from western nations developing themselves by oppressing and exploiting others, the Chinese people have risen out of poverty at the cost of blood, sweat, and tears of our own. I would like to remind you of Franklin Roosevelt’s self-evident words that nothing to fear but fear itself. The only threat you should conquer is the threat in your mind.

As Henry Kissinger has argued, relations between China and the United States need not – and should not – become a zero-sum game. He also suggested that China and America build a Pacific community with each other. Thinking in the same way, Chinese President Xi also claimed that the vast Pacific Ocean has enough space for the two large countries of China and the United States. Furthermore, I believe the world is large enough to embrace different political and social systems. As western liberalism in recent years has met difficulties in over-consumption and government failure, we should be more open-minded to the superiority of Chinese governance in some fields, especially the high efficiency in defeating the epidemic. The United States should also be more self-confident to have China rising under the global governance of international institutions, sharing with mutual benefits instead of destroying each other. Without doubt, only by doing so can the United States overcome the real threat and bring the world peace and prosperity, the real universal values for all mankind.