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

❤️經過三個星期與家人的相處，我回到了台北在這開始我接下來的防疫旅館生活。雖然在歐洲的生活幾乎都已恢復正常，但我還是需要提一下，Delta變種病毒案例卻非常不幸的一直急劇增加，感謝臺灣的法規嚴格很多。
-
與其他國家相比，台灣病例數量相對較低，台灣政府要求所有返台旅客需要在酒店每位旅客單獨房間進行隔離檢疫。我必需老實說，我真的不明白重點是什麼。Des和我住在一起，我們一起旅行三個星期，我們一起坐飛機，下飛機坐同樣的計程車到旅館，給對方Kiss goodbye ，但我們卻不能隔離在同一個房間。 但規則就是規則，如果這規定真的能讓疫情狀況更好讓我們所有人更安全，那麼就沒什麼可說的了。👌🏼
-
在兩個月內，臺灣成功將每天的病例數字從高峰期的每日476例降到每日不足15例。部分功勞必須歸功於臺灣人民的守法和互相尊重。很難想像可以有更好的方法讓台灣擺脫目前的狀況，但我人在台灣真的讓我覺得很安全。😌
-
現在預訂隔離酒店是一個非常緊張跟壓力很大的體驗，因為幾乎所有的防疫旅館都客滿了，其他的不是看起來不舒服不然就是價格過高。（我們有不好的經驗，好不容易終於通過檢疫酒店網站預訂到房價，但卻收到他們的電話，說他們不接受回國的防疫旅客！非常感謝因為一個朋友的幫助我們終於在雀客CHECKINN酒店找到了兩個房間。我很感謝我們可以得到他們的預訂，在預約的過程簡單快速，溝通沒有障礙。更開心的是房間超級乾淨，床也是超級舒適，飯店人員每天都溫暖關心我們的健康狀況。最後我知道有一些防疫不接受UberEat 的外送，但健康飲食對我們來說非常重要，實在無法想像這裡的生活沒有他們的幫助會是如何!😅
-
所以，如果你現在正在旅行或有計劃旅行，我強烈建議你現在就預訂您回國的防疫旅館！如果你有任何問題或需要幫忙的，可以私訊我，我非常樂意幫忙您度過這緊張及壓力大的防疫經驗！🙌🏼
-
After three precious weeks spent visiting my family, here starts my quarantine back in Taipei. 🔒
While life is getting back to normal in Europe, with I need to mention an unfortunately sharp increase of the delta variant cases, regulations here in Taiwan are much more strict.
With a relatively low number of cases compare to other countries, the government request to do our quarantine in a hotel, in separate room.
I’m going to be honest, I don’t understand this last point. Des and I live together, we spent three weeks next to each other, took our flight together, took the same taxi, kissed each other to say goodbye but we can’t quarantine in the same room. But rules are the rules and if this really can make the situation safer for all of us then there is not much to say.
In two months time Taiwan successfully decreased the daily cases from 476 at it peak to less than 15. A part of the credit must go to the obedience and respect from Taiwanese. It’s difficult to see a way out of this situation, but I definitely feel safer here. Now, booking a quarantine hotel was a very stressful experience as most of them were fully booked and other were either looking uncomfortable or overpriced. (We had the bad experience to finally book one through the quarantine hotels website and then receive a call from them saying they don’t accept quarantine!!).
Then thanks to a friend, we finally find two rooms in CHECKINN hotel. I’m very happy we got to book with them as the communication and booking was very fast, easy, the rooms are super clean, the bed is super confortable and they are very caring. We also learnt that some hotels don’t accept delivery from Uber eats which was unimaginable for us ahah!😅
So if you are travelling right now or planning a trip, I highly recommend to book your hotel right now!
Drop me a private message if you have any question, I would be happy to help you and get through this stressful experience!🙌🏼
-
#twoweeksquarantine #CHECKinn #taipei

My two buah hatis..❤️🥰 Alhamdulillah…One is almost 2 and one is almost 50..and both are my babies hehehe 😀😍
.
Being a late comer to the mummy life (baik lambat Tapi selamat!) has its aches and pains physically but mentally and emotionally I am so grateful it has happened now, not earlier 🤲🏻 Dulu..Back then I dont think I would have the maturity, patience and have had enough self growth to not pass on multi generational habits that don’t serve us on to little @tunkusofianajihah ❤️ Mummy pun dah lebih matang tapi.. tak ada sesiapa yang sempurna kan?
.
Daddy pun said the same thing..he is so happy it happened to us now..and it is so important to get self growth, seek out help and improve ourselves so we can be fully present parents, and help our child flourish..not just survive this life. 💕👶🏻
Anak2 mengikut kita. Semua yang kita buat, semua yang kita cakap…mereka terkesan. Kena Berjaga jaga dengan perasaan anak2 kita. Takut Bila besar nanti.. ulang balik apa yang kita menyesal.
.
Tabik, Props and respect to all parents out there doing their very damn best. You are the best and you are enough!! 💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻 #thenadzimuddins #alhamdulillah

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”

Getting our Tarot Cards Read is all the buzz right now, yes?

The Thirsty Sisters are back with another episode this week, this time with Geraldine—a Tarot Card Reader and we forced Sylvia to have her Tarot Cards read. How does life after the divorce look for her, and has she moved on from it? What about her ex-husband? What do the cards say about it all? Tune in to find out ?

Geraldine has also kindly offered a very HUAT rate of $88 (U.P. $99) exclusively for our TTS community ? This offer is valid till 30 June 2021 or till she's fully booked so fastest fingers first!
Check out Geraldine on Instagram @friendlyneighbourhoodwitchsg

Timestamps
00:00 intro
01:14 Topic of the Day
02:54 Why Nina isn't getting a reading
03:52 Get to know a tarot card reader
07:26 How to prepare before a tarot reading
08:12 Theme of today's reading: Sylvia's divorce
09:18 Sylvia picks her cards
11:28 Was Sylvia's divorce hard to decide?
14:18 Is Sylvia on the right path?
16:00 A difficult decision is on the way?
18:15 Wedding bells for Sylvia?!
21:20 Will Sylvia fully step out from her divorce?
22:12 How good is Sylvia's reading?
24:30 Can Nina ask questions on Sylvia's behalf?
25:41 How does Ryan feel about Sylvia?
28:05 Is Ryan happy with Sylvia?
29:46 Is Mandy happy with Sylvia's body size?
31:38 Questions from the TTS community ?
32:01 Will COVID-19 end this year?!
33:34 Will TTS make any impact?
34:56 Is Nina and Sylvia Chio Bu SG?!
37:10 How does tarot card reading empower us
38:46 Thoughts on the whole experience
42:05 Does Nina want a reading too?
43:07 Surprise for our TTS community
44:15 Shoutout to small female-owned businesses ?
45:22 Conclusion

Sylvia and Nina are not your typical influencers; they give it to you raw and real! Join them as they quench their never-ending thirst for wisdom, trends, success and men.

They explore hot and pressing issues you never thought you needed to know in this extremely in-depth podcast. Sisters, brothers and everyone in between or beyond; jump in and be thirsty!

*Disclaimers*
The legal age for sex in Singapore is 18. While being comfortable with your bodies is a must, please protect yourselves by using protection ?
https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/legal-age-for-sex-in-singapore/

Our views in this podcast include only our own experiences as heterosexual women in Singapore, we respect everyone’s views regardless of genders, gender identities and sexual orientations.

Follow The Thirsty Sisters on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Instagram!
https://podcasts.apple.com/sg/podcast/the-thirsty-sisters/id1509379792
https://www.instagram.com/thethirstysisterstts
https://open.spotify.com/show/5yx8txjfb7dMkosumEv6lQ?si=5Ew1dv6wRlCayZ0TQfo-Ug

Featuring:
Sylvia - https://www.instagram.com/sylsylnoc
Nina - https://www.instagram.com/ninatsf

Brand collaborations/features:
sales@noc.com.sg

The Thirsty Sisters TEAM
Co-Founders: Sylvia Chan | Nina Tan
Executive Producer: Sylvia Chan
Crew/Editors: Jade Liew | Winston Tay
Motion Graphics Designers: Bryan Seah | Kher Chyn
Sound Engineers: Nah Yu En | Mabel Leong
Digital Strategist: Winston Tay

? คลิปรถใหม่ 2019-2020 มาแล้วครับ คลิกที่นี่ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSebcviE-UeYMxVRNozwqtw/videos

2018 Honda Forza 125
Honda’s segment-leading sports/GT Forza 125 scooter maintains its rapid upward trajectory, receiving a thorough-going restyle, plus electrically adjustable screen, LED indicators, new instrumentation, two all-new colour options. increased underseat storage space and an optional 45-litre Smart Key-linked top box that improve still further its all-round premium appeal.

Honda’s Forza 125 was designed specifically for discerning European scooter customers who demand the maximum out of their ride in every respect – style, presence, performance and specification. And right from its introduction in 2015 it has met and exceeded all expectations, evolving year on year with owner feedback and selling over 30,000 units to date.

Straight out of the crate the Forza 125 hit the ground rolling, deftly mixing traffic-busting agility – thanks to its compact dimensions – with ample ability for longer-range highway commute thanks to its engine performance, wind protection and comfort. It combines the comfort of a ‘GT’ (Grand Touring) scooter with a sports-oriented attitude and handling ability, while offering plenty of storage, a host of premium details plus Honda’s engineering innovation and high build quality.

Classy and agile, and expanding on its obvious success, the Forza 125 is not standing still: for 2018, maintaining a steep development curve, it has been redrawn with fresh new lines and several significant rider-focused upgrades.

- Adjustable electric screen controlled from the left handlebar
- Revised dash offers a mix of analogue and digital information
- LED indicators complement the LED headlight and taillight
- The Smart Key also now operates an optional 45-litre top box
- Refreshed design lines further enhance the premium feel

The Forza 125’s fully-refreshed look flows back from the new electric screen, which adjusts smoothly through 140mm and is designed to provide wind protection (with airflow directed around and over the rider’s head) and reduce wind noise. Stability and comfort at higher speeds – and for long distances – can be instantly exchanged for a greater sense of freedom with the screen in its lower position by simply pushing a switch on the left handlebar to move it to any point in the 140mm range.

Handlebar width remains 754mm as does mirror height of 1125mm, the perfect dimensions for slipping through streets clogged with cars – one of the Forza 125’s incremental development steps already in place from 2017 was to raise its own mirror height to avoid issues with car mirrors. Seat height is unchanged at 780mm; there’s plenty of room for two and the sit-in riding position cups the rider securely. The front and rear indicators are now LED, matching the headlight and taillight.

Two full-face helmets can be stored under the seat, which now offers increased storage space of 53.5 litres, up from 48 litres. It’s also possible to partition the storage area to house a helmet and/or rain gear and A4 sized bags. The front left inner fairing pocket is lockable, and its internal space can be arranged for the rider’s convenience, to hold a phone and water bottle, for instance. It also houses a 12V-1A charging socket.

The Forza 125’s Smart Key – as well as controlling the main ignition switch knob and compartment locking – also now manages the optional 45L removable top box, a first on a Honda scooter. With the Smart Key in the rider’s pocket the box automatically locks when the rider walks away. It can also be locked from the key. The top box switch is on its bottom surface, and to maintain the internal volume of the box the actuator mechanism is located in the rear body of the machine.

Revised instruments present analogue speedometer and rev-counter dials flanking a digital display that can switch between 3 modes (controlled by a switch on the left handlebar); odometer, range remaining and current fuel consumption; trip meter, average fuel consumption and timer; or ambient temperature thermometer and battery sensor.

The Forza’s sharp design lines and distinctive contemporary presence have played a big part in its success since launch in 2015. Now for the 2018 model, the design has been substantially re-worked. While the bold design lines remain instantly recognizable as a Forza 125, every panel has been revised to give the machine a slightly smoother, more mature appearance, with a more rounded, ‘stubby’ feel to the front end and slightly softer design lines throughout. Further heightening the new look, black signature points around the nose, front and side cowls give an added sense of sportiness.

Allen Iverson scored 37 points in his MVP Season vs. Orlando Magic

One of the most controversial Basketball players of all time, Allen Iverson is one of the most loved and hated figures in Basketball. Born Allen Ezail Iverson in Hampton, Virginia, he grew up very poor to a struggling mother and a father who deserted him. Growing up, he was very athletic, playing football and basketball throughout most of his education prior to college. Iverson began focusing on basketball at his mother's insistence, despite wanting to be a football player. He proved to be a talented basketball player. At Bethel High School in Newport News, he began his high school basketball career. He developed a reputation of talking a lot and being uncoachable. To say he had a rough childhood is quite an understatement. On one of his places of residence, he walked through knee-deep sewage daily. During one summer, he witnessed the death of almost ten of his closest friends. Iverson first came to the national spotlight in 1993 in a controversial incident surrounding violent events at a bowling alley in Newport News. While the events that happened there will never be fully known, the generally accepted story is that some white students got into an argument with Iverson and his friends. The first question surrounding the event is whether he started it or if the white kids started it. Also, the question surrounded whether or not he assaulted a white woman by hitting her over the head with a chair. The prosecution insisted that surveillance tapes undoubtedly showed Iverson was the culprit, but in reality the tapes showed nothing conclusive. Two factors did him in at his hearing; first of all, two white people said they saw him assault the girl. Secondly, the judge was from the very conservative southeast Virginia establishment and did not have any sympathy for Iverson, his background or his talent. Seeing that Iverson requested a bench trial, this was crucial to his case. To add fuel to the fire, Allen Iverson flew in for the weekend from a tournament to be in Virginia for his trial. This played into the prosecution's hands and also upset the judge, both of whom saw this as evidence that Iverson did not respect the law. He was sentenced to a 5 -year jail term. This case sparked a tremendous amount of national attention. The case caught the interest of Bill Cosby and Spike Lee, who would be a fan and advocate of Iverson for many years. People all around the Newport News area started a movement to free Allen Iverson. He spent only four months in jail. Governor Douglas Wilder pardoned him. This move all but ended his political career and sparked another controversy. Wilder was also black, and white voters in Virginia viewed this move in a very racist light. Iverson was viewed now in much of white America as essentially a convicted felon who was out of prison only because a black man was governor of his state. Iverson got out conditionally, however. He had to adhere to a curfew and could not play basketball until he got his high school diploma. He could not accept a scholarship to the University of Kentucky but did get a scholarship once he completed his high school education in a learning center. During this time, he received his nickname, the answer. He was called such because his friends said he was the answer to basketball's conformity so to speak, people that conformed to this family friendly image, such as Charles Barkley, Isiah Thomas and most importantly, Michael Jordan, who was a childhood hero of his. He accepted a scholarship to Georgetown where John Thompson coached him. Thompson became somewhat of a father figure to him, but he was hard to manage, and the two had a workable but very turbulent relationship. Iverson completed only two years of his education where he became the top NBA draft pick in 1996. He was drafted by the ailing Philadelphia 76ers in 1996. Iverson is immersed in hip-hop culture. This made him an incredibly controversial figure in basketball. His clothing looked more like a gangster rappers than it did Michael Jordan's. On the court he seemed to embody the gangster rapper's image. He had an arm covering on one arm when he played, and also was one of the first players to have cornrows; a hairstyle up until that time was popular in prison. To make matters worse, he had an incredibly "in your face" style, which did not sit well with older players like Charles Barkley, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and others. Jordan said of him when Jordan's Bulls played Iverson's 76ers, that he had no respect for the game. Despite this, no one denied Iverson's talent. He could hustle the ball, could get around even the tallest players. He became known for his fast drives to the baskets and his ability to fake the ball in a move called the crossover. Spike Lee lost respect for him when he turned down his invitation to star in the film He Got Game (1998). As a very pointed move, Lee cast former collegiate rival Ray Allen in the part. The Sixers found themselves suddenly a respectable team. They acquired a new coach, the unusual Larry Brown. As a player in the ABA almost twenty years ago, Brown was also a young outsider fighting the system. Larry Brown now was a button-down-suit-and-tie coach. The two did not get along well at first; in fact, their relationship at best was serviceable. Brown was always unhappy with Iverson for not showing up to practice. Iverson insisted his game was pure inspiration, and he had little need for practice. The two rarely saw eye to eye. He received a tremendous number of awards in his short career. He was named rookie of the year in 1997, and on more than one occasion, he was an All NBA First Team, NBA All Star, was an All Star MVP, and received perhaps what was his crowning achievement to date when he was NBA MVP in 2001. That year, Iverson led his team to the NBA finals, but had a rough ride against Kobe Bryant and 'Shaquille ONeal's Lakers. They lost the championship in game five of the series. It was still quite an achievement because the Sixers had not been to the finals since Dr. J (Julius Erving) and Moses Malone led them to victory over the Lakers in 1983 in a 4-0 sweep. Iverson has over 20 tattoos. Each tattoo is a symbol of his life. One denotes the name of his group of friends he has known since childhood, Cru Thik, another who says the answer, another who is dedicated to his mom who is a strong presence as Sixers games, and many others. He married his high school sweetheart Tawanna Turner and they have two children.

Won the gold medal at World University Games with the US Team in 1995.

Named Big East Rookie of the Year 1995
Named Big East Defensive Player of the Year 1995, 1996.

1st pick in NBA Draft 1996

Was named MVP of the 2000-01 NBA season.

Attended Georgetown University from 1994 to 1996 where he was coached by the legendary John Thompson.

Drafted first overall by the Philadelphia 76ers in 96.

Rookie of the Year 1997.
NBA Rookie 1st Team 1997.
Rookie All-star game MVP in 1997.

NBA All Star 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007.

All Star Game MVP 2001, 2005.

NBA MVP 2001.(Shortest MVP in MVP history)

All NBA First Team 1999, 2000, 2001, 2005.

In 2001, Led the 76ers to their first NBA Finals appearance since 1983 (lost to the LA Lakers in 5 games).

Played for Georgetown University.

Played Quarterback in HS and led his school to state titles in football and basketball his senior year.

Under lifetime contract with Reebok.

Daughter Tiaura (b. 1995), son Allen II, or "Deuce" (b. 1998).

Led the Bethel High School Bruins (Hampton, Virginia) to the 1993 basketball and football state championship; the then-16 year old played point guard and quarterback.

Released a rap album, Slow Motion, with appearances by his friends Ma$e, Jermaine Dupri, Da Brat and Kool-G-Rap.

Georgetown University's all-time leading scorer.

Named after his father, Allen Broughton, who left the family and never married Iverson's mother.

Since 1998, he has hosted the Allen Iverson Celebrity Classic to benefit the Boys & Girls Club of Greater Hampton Roads, Virginia.

Lives on the same street as M. Night Shyamalan.

Wife Tawanna, gave birth to their 3rd child, Isaiah Rahsaan Iverson, the baby weighted 7 lbs. and was born at 9:30 A.M. on August 8, 2003.

He founded the Crossover Foundation.

Allen's third child, son Isaiah Rahsaan, was named for Isiah Thomas and the late Rahsaan Langford, Allen Iverson's close friend who was shot to death in October 2001.

Olympic Bronze Medalist (2004 - Basketball).

He and wife Tawanna welcomed their fourth child, daughter Messiah Lauren Iverson on August 16, 2005 at 11:47 AM, weighing 6 lbs, 12 ounces.

Currently playing for the Denver Nuggets