關於 arise rise ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Greater Grace is Coming!

““For truly, in this city against your holy servant, Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever your hand and your council foreordained to happen. Now, Lord, look at their threats, and grant to your servants to speak your word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of your holy Servant Jesus.” When they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were gathered together. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness. The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul. Not one of them claimed that anything of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. With great power, the apostles gave their testimony of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Great grace was on them all. For neither was there among them any who lacked, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet, and distribution was made to each, according as anyone had need.” (Acts‬ ‭4:27-35‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

In a post from months ago, I had shared that Pharaoh’s dream of the seven fat cows and seven skinny cows have an end-time prophetic meaning of seven years of plenty before the Rapture and seven years of severe famine during the seven years of Tribulation.

“Joseph said to Pharaoh, “The dream of Pharaoh is one. What God is about to do he has declared to Pharaoh. The seven good cattle are seven years; and the seven good heads of grain are seven years. The dream is one. The seven thin and ugly cattle that came up after them are seven years, and also the seven empty heads of grain blasted with the east wind; they will be seven years of famine. That is the thing which I spoke to Pharaoh. What God is about to do he has shown to Pharaoh. Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt. There will arise after them seven years of famine, and all the plenty will be forgotten in the land of Egypt. The famine will consume the land, and the plenty will not be known in the land by reason of that famine which follows; for it will be very grievous. The dream was doubled to Pharaoh, because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.” (Genesis‬ ‭41:25-32‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

I believe we are in/entering that season of seven plentiful years.

In the seven plentiful years, we are going to see things like the early church experienced, but at a much greater magnitude. It is the Lord’s final harvest of souls before the Rapture.

We will see:

- Bold believers rise up to win souls and amazing miracles happening when they preach the Gospel.

- The world shaken by the Holy Spirit and a huge outpouring of the Spirit upon all flesh. Even unbelievers will receive dreams and visions from God and experience His power.

- A new level of unity and love among the body of Christ.

- A prosperous church that shares her wealth with those in need; the wealth of the nations will be transferred to believers.

We are not going to leave this world as a bruised, battered, cowering church. We will be prospering in all things together and prepared as a radiant bride for the Lord. This is the effect of us collectively receiving more revelation about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“But the path of the righteous is like the dawning light, that shines more and more until the perfect day.” (Proverbs‬ ‭4:18‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

The path of the righteous (believers) will shine more and more until the perfect day.

“For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For this perishable body must become imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable body will have become imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then what is written will happen: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “Death, where is your sting? Hades, where is your victory?”” (1 Corinthians‬ ‭15:25-26, 53-55‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

The last enemy that will be put under Jesus’ feet and abolished is death. This means that before the Rapture, all other enemies would be under the feet of the body of Christ. This includes sickness, aging, weakness, poverty, broken relationships, and all types of bondages that have plagued the church throughout history.

We would be so full of life that the only thing remaining is to be clothed with our glorified body and meet Jesus in the air.

Are you excited about the seven years of plenty? If the early church experienced great grace, the end-time church before the Rapture will experience greater grace! Don’t just be a spectator—ask Him to let you participate in a significant way, to bringing about good change for His kingdom!

One revelation that the body of Christ will grow in is this: receiving supernatural youth renewal to live young, healthy, strong, and beautiful like Jesus. I believe that “Younger and Younger” (the eBook and audio) are being used to enlighten believers about this part of our inheritance that is often neglected. Join me on a 31-day youth renewal journey to meet a new you—it is a transformation that everyone can see:
https://bit.ly/younger-and-younger

【#破曉傳奇 】今集幾好玩 😎👍

►看全文 https://bit.ly/2Wshg7T

#TalesofArise #破曉傳奇 #ToArise #試玩 #BandaiNamco #遊戲動漫 #hashTECH #科技玩物 #香港01
---------------------------------
🐉 Monster Hunter RISE攻略獵人必讀
► https://hk01.app.link/8ZcvylKgHeb
🧐 消委會家電評測／使用保養貼士／買前必看
► https://bit.ly/3pwJozV
😎 iPhone 12 SE2最新消息／功能合集
► https://bit.ly/33cAJe4
👾 PS5＼Switch＼Xbox遊戲情報及攻略
► https://bit.ly/313oUV1
📱 手機教學合集＼一鍵清機＼實用好App
► https://bit.ly/2PbRdek
---------------------------------
下載《香港01》App即睇最貼心數碼生活資訊💪
►立即下載 → https://hk01.app.link/cDzRrmV2vO

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”

新制多益超常見【易混淆的單字比較ep3】Ricky//英語小蛋糕 ｜TOEIC Confusingly Similar English Words ep3

👉「多益愛考混淆字 教材」
馬上領取 : https://lin.ee/oue8V3S
(點進去後輸入教材密碼 r127)
#易混淆單字#多益單字#新制多益

🔔FB 訂閱領教材 https://pse.is/SZGM9
🔔Youtube 訂閱 https://bit.ly/2qrtE53
🔔IG 追蹤 http://bit.ly/2HVjpQn
🔔line@ 追蹤 http://bit.ly/2U2Q1yH
----------------------------------------------------------------------

大家最愛的多益單元又來拉！
今天這組單字真的是超愛考
rise - raise - arise - arouse 這四個單字根本就長一樣啊😎
但是他的中文解釋真的百百種
快來看看我怎麼速解吧


國際新聞
【國際新聞：武漢肺炎】https://youtu.be/SRtsDI6iPRg
【國際新聞：2020台灣總統大選】https://youtu.be/slNQU8OQ5ww

英文文法
【感官型連綴動詞，look是一般動詞還是連綴動詞？】https://youtu.be/PhYo_Ae97Ro
【秒判斷單字詞性，易混淆的單字詞性】https://youtu.be/gvWetfXviTw
【名詞子句（上）】https://youtu.be/e_fzzCnJ_go

熱門影片
【去語言學校英文真的會變好？ 菲律賓語言學校推薦】https://youtu.be/bHEGfcP3jkc

多益高分系列
【多益高分7個必懂文法 】https://youtu.be/Os3eFKisucw
【新制多益8個必懂考前秘訣】多益990教我的事https://youtu.be/GkMkQ4I91uI

航空系列（考空服員\地勤）
【航空面試NG回答！一定不要這樣說】https://youtu.be/WvmyP2n1NyU
【第二關：角色扮演role play】https://youtu.be/UIXzsA6y0F0

實用英文系列
【超實用！職場必學五句片語】Ricky//英語小蛋糕https://youtu.be/Nj6ZfMODV2U
【完勝檢定！五種實用工具 輕鬆對付 聽說讀寫！】https://youtu.be/eVFGyS0QuA0
【一秒變外國人！增進聽力7大連音規則】https://youtu.be/9VYaHa4lwtA

來賓爆笑挑戰系列
【超爆笑聽力大考驗，熱門歌曲歌詞猜一猜】https://youtu.be/-LxlvkbDna0
【猜謎大亂鬥！英文片語猜猜看】https://youtu.be/Ri-fFz5Q-mI


我在AmazingTalker開課囉！
包含基本的生活會話，還有航空英文、商業英文
甚至是檢定英文，都可以來看看唷！
如果有其他英文需求也可以在頁面私訊我！
來我的教師頁面看看吧：
http://bit.ly/2WsxXvB

合作邀約 ricky@amazingtalker.com

每週四晚上8:00準時發布影片哦！
不定時週二晚上8:00發布有趣生活影片～
----------------------------------------------------------------------

我在AmazingTalker開課囉！
包含基本的生活會話，還有航空英文、商業英文
甚至是檢定英文，都可以來看看唷！
如果有其他英文需求也可以在頁面私訊我！
來我的教師頁面看看吧：
http://bit.ly/2WsxXvB

合作邀約 ricky@amazingtalker.com

每週四晚上8:00準時發布影片哦！
不定時週二晚上8:00發布有趣生活影片～
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Facebook 第一手看到訊息歡迎來按讚 + 搶先看
傳送門: https://goo.gl/R2DTW5

AmazingTalker 線上語言教學剪輯團隊
傳送門: https://goo.gl/LewJuV

#'99年にトライエースが開発、エニックスが発売した、PS用ARPG作品。
北欧神話をモチーフに、来たるべき最終戦争へ向け、戦乙女"ヴァルキリー"であるレナス・ヴァルキュリアとなって人の魂をスカウトし戦力に加えつつ人間界・天界を駆け巡る。

BGMは桜庭氏が作曲、オーケストラ曲を中心にロック等を織り交ぜ、戦禍のアスガルド・ミッドガルドに相応しい楽曲群を見事に作り上げた。

ドライバ作成：初芝弘也氏
作曲：桜庭統氏

Manufacture: 1999.12.22 ENIX / Try-ace
Hardware: cd-da
computer: playstation
Music Driver Programmer: Hiroya Hatsushiba
composer: Motoi Sakuraba
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
00:00:00 01.Epic Poem to Sacred Death (聖なる死への叙事詩/プロローグBGM)
00:03:14 02.Take a Flight (オープニングアニメ)
00:04:32 03.To the Unhallowed Ground (不浄なる地へ/オープニング)
00:06:19 04.Valhalla (ヴァルハラ)
00:09:15 05.Requiem to a Predicament (窮境へのレクイエム/精神集中(通常))
00:09:52 06.All is Twilight (全ては黄昏となりて/アルトリア)
00:13:19 07.Prosperity's Compensation ～ An Introduction (繁栄その代償そして序奏/ヴィルノア)
00:16:20 08.In Water, Air, and Light (水と光と風の中で/海藍)
00:19:11 09.The Road to Glory and Prosperity (栄光と繁栄の道へ/フレンスベルグ)
00:23:30 10.When a Person Changes (人が人ではなくなる時/クレルモンフェラン)
00:26:31 11.Soon We See Shadow and Light (不日参上陰と陽)
00:31:18 12.Emotion Upset
00:33:29 13.Turn Over a New Leaf (Rhythm Version) (ボス戦闘前(通常))
00:35:04 14.Fighting the Shadowy Gods (未確認神闘シンドローム/通常戦闘曲)
00:38:16 15.The Key to Singing the Praises of Victory (謳われし勝利への鍵/戦闘勝利)
00:38:51 16.Doorway to Heaven (天空の扉/フィールド)
00:42:20 17.The Counterfeit Self (虚偽の自己認識/精神集中(ダンジョン発見時))
00:42:56 18.Distortions in the Void of Despair (奈落の底にある歪曲/アルトリア山岳遺跡)
00:46:30 19.Confidence in the Domination (ボス戦BGM(汎用))
00:49:04 20.Artifact (アーティファクト/アーティファクト入手時)
00:49:13 21.Blameless Thoughts (責められぬ想い/ボス撃破後ダンジョン)
00:53:35 22.Ancient Fantasies Eternal (古代悠久あまねし幻想/忘却の洞窟)
00:56:24 23.Eternal Hydrogen Anxieties (憂いし Eternal Hydrogen/凶禍の森)
00:59:38 24.Evil Tales and Obligations (悪趣浄瑠璃すべからく/ゾルデ地下墓地,ローム丘陵のカラクリ屋敷)
01:02:16 25.Clouds of Spray (水煙/竜宮洞窟)
01:05:15 26.Black Blinding Nightmare (まだ見ぬ夢魔に集いし闇/サレルノ実験場跡)
01:08:12 27.Hopeless Resolution (ネルソフ湿地帯)
01:11:49 28.Illuminating Magic Links (魔降臨連鎖概説/ゴーラ教団本部)
01:15:16 29.Oblivion's Joy (悦懌の忘却/奇岩洞窟)
01:19:06 30.The Name of His People is Fear (彼の者の名は、恐怖/ブラムス城)
01:22:23 31.In the Beginning, There was Light (コンストラクタ、光ありき/黒夢塔)
01:26:02 32.Out of Chaos (カオスへの派生/暗黒塔ゼルヴァ,奉竜殿)
01:29:12 33.An Illusion of the Brainstem (サッカス侵食洞)
01:32:24 34.Hard Chain Reaction (レザード・ヴァレスの塔)
01:36:17 35.Ray of Darkness, Ray of Light (一条の闇、一条の光 アークダインの遺跡)
01:40:07 36.Delusional Extremities (急滅至極生命力/炎の城塞)
01:43:47 37.Ending the Spiral (そして螺旋の終わりへ/亡失都市ディパン)
01:46:50 38.Rise Above the World (亡失都市ディパン(過去))
01:49:39 39.Eternal Engine of Linguistic Massacre (殺戮言語永久機関/バルバロッサ戦)
01:51:26 40.Negative Roots (否定的な無意識下へ/水中神殿)
01:54:31 41.Circulate on a Windup Doll (レイス戦)
01:56:33 42.Reflections of Trickery (目に映りしものは偽/精霊の森)
01:59:48 43.An Inscription on a Tombstone (古代墳墓アメンティ)
02:03:01 44.Eternal Spirits Arise (目覚めし永遠なる魂/アズタロサ戦)
02:05:11 45.Unstable Balance (不安定の釣り合い/アリアンロッドの迷宮)
02:07:44 46.Recurrent Shudders (回帰性戦慄カテゴリー/天空城)
02:11:10 47.Heads Magic, Tails Curse (表にある魔、裏にある聖/J.D.ウォルス戦)
02:14:02 48.To the Last Drop of My Blood (ヨツンヘイム宮殿)
02:17:27 49.The Nonsense of Reality (真実の戯言/スルト戦)
02:20:16 50.Over There (彼方の地へ/エンディング)
02:23:09 51.A Hollow Heart (空虚なる心)
02:25:22 52.A Tense Atmosphere
02:27:40 53.A Clash of Personalities (戦況報告)
02:28:39 54.Weeping Lilies (鈴蘭)
02:31:50 55.Tomorrow (明日)
02:35:05 56.The Crumbling Id (崩れゆくイド)
02:37:24 57.Through a Thin Haze (薄霧/悲しいイベント)
02:41:33 58.Behave Irrationally
02:43:44 59.Fragments of the Heart (心の小片)
02:46:28 60.The First Unison (アスガルド丘陵)
02:49:57 61.Systematic Enemy (ブラッドヴェイン戦)
02:52:12 62.Vestigal Dream (夢痕/フェンリル戦)
02:55:00 63..Break Down
02:56:14 64.The Neverending Cycle of Reincarnation
02:57:56 65.Turn Over a New Leaf (真ラスボス戦闘前BGM)
02:59:32 66.The True Nature of All (ロキ戦)
03:01:40 67.Becoming Accustomed to Happiness (幸せに、なれますように。/トゥル ーエンド)
03:08:13 68.Fantasy and Reality Intermingled (仮想と現実の混在)
03:10:10 69.Mission to Deep Space (セラフィックゲート)
03:16:03 70.Beast of Prey (レザード・ヴァレス戦(セラフィックゲート))
03:18:56 71.Shiver (フレイ戦(セラフィックゲート))
03:21:37 72.The Climax of the Tower (ブラムス戦(セラフィックゲート))
03:24:03 73.The Incarnation of the Devil (ガブリエ・セレスタ戦)
03:27:20 74.Mighty Blow (イセリア・クィーン戦)
03:30:02 75.Nostalgia Into Hope (希望への望郷 イセリア・クィーン撃破後)
03:33:11 76.Fanfare
03:33:19 77.Storm
03:34:02 78.Strong Wind
03:34:41 79.Water and Church Bells
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(English version below)

吾，玳瑚師父，最近看到很多人很喜歡在她他們的臉書照片上加工，比如說貓的耳朵、兔的耳朵、狗等等，但是吾告訴妳你，這些其實是不好的、不良的，千萬不要這樣做。

一、人的境界其實和精靈的世 界是重疊的。這樣可能會招來一些精靈的靈附在妳你身上，那妳你就會很痛苦。

二、妳你又知道妳你的五行是屬於什麼？妳你所要的用神是什麼？如果妳你放錯了狗、貓，等等等，反而妳你一生的命運，或者運程都會變得越來越坎坷不順利，妳你就會痛苦。

「師父，這些照片都很可愛而且很多人都在使用。那爲什麼您說這些照片會影響到我們的運程呢？」

因爲妳你的心。妳你動了妳你的心念，而人家看了，給於妳你一些意見或留言，妳你感官的一種刺激撬動了妳你的心靈，它就有一種靈動力，產生一種「加持力」，但不是好的加持力，會把我們的命運跟運程給搞壞。

所以這些完全是不明智的，千萬不要這樣做。

妳你們可以大家告訴大家，口耳相傳，讓大家都能夠免受這種無妄之災。

玳瑚師父希望妳你們不要去迷流行性的東西。記得要小心，以免把一生的幸福和快樂給毀在自己的手上。

祝福妳你們智慧增長。謝謝大家。

.....................

Recently, I have noticed many people who like to edit their photos on Facebook, adding cat ears, bunny ears and dog etc. But let me tell you, this is not a good thing. It's undesirable. Never ever do this.

Firstly, the human realm actually overlaps with the realm of elves & spirits. Such acts can possibly attract them to latch onto your body and that will bring much misery to you.

Secondly, do you know your personal element? What favourable elements do you need? If you add the wrong animal like a cat or dog etc, your entire destiny and personal luck will get rougher and go very badly. Then you will be in much pain.

"Master, these photos are very cute and many people are using them. So why do you say such photos can affect our destiny luck?"

Because of your mind. Your mind gives rise to a thought. When people see the photos and give you their opinion or comment, the stimulation of your senses will stir your mind, and a ripple of spiritual motion will arise, producing a force of "blessings", but it isn't positive blessings and will destroy our destiny and personal luck

So this is totally not sensible. Never ever do this.

Everybody please share with everybody. Through word of mouth, you can prevent others from suffering this undeserved catastrophe

Master Dai Hu hopes that you will not get addicted to fads, least your lifetime of bliss and happiness get ruined in your own hands

May you grow in wisdom. Thank you, everybody.

http://www.masterdaihu.com
http://www.facebook.com/masterdaihu