關於 two sleeping at last ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【男人四十】「三高」越趨年輕化

⭐長期飲食不節的後果
⭐容易誘發冠心病腦中風等致命病症
#星期三CheckCheckMail

飲食不節慎防三高
朱先生：「最近做身體檢查，醫生說我在『三高』邊緣，如何解決這個中年危機？」

CheckCheckCin：「三高」即高血壓、高血糖及高血脂，可說是都市人的富貴病，長期飲食不節，經常進食高脂肪、高糖份、高鹽份食物，再加上缺乏運動、壓力大、作息不正常等因素，令各種身體指數超標。西醫會以各種藥物來降低血壓、血糖及血脂，而從中醫角度來看需要改善體質，必須改變生活習慣，才能從根源上緩解「三高」症狀。一般來說痰濕、血瘀及陰虛體質人士比較容易患上「三高」，因為痰濕體質人士脾氣虛弱，水液運化失調；血瘀體質人士則血脈不通；陰虛體質人士作息顛倒容易令血壓上升。
想改善「三高」情況，宜諮詢註冊中醫師對症下藥調理體質，飲食上宜清淡，多菜少肉，減少外食或加工食品，避免進食高脂肪、高糖份、高鹽份的食物；養成定期做運動的習慣，一星期最少三次，每次最少30分鐘，強度以輕微出汗為宜；避免晚睡熬夜；尋找合適的減壓方法，因為焦慮不安等負面情緒也會導致血壓上升。

山楂黑木耳茶
功效：活血涼血，紓緩肥胖、高血脂等症狀。
材料：山楂15克、黑木耳15克
做法：材料切絲，洗淨放保溫瓶，以熱開水沖洗一遍，再注入熱開水焗10分鐘即可。此茶可反覆沖泡至味淡，建議一星期飲用2-3次，連續兩星期為一個療程。
注意：孕婦不宜飲用。

留言或按讚👍🏻支持一下我們吧！❤️ 歡迎 Follow 我們獲得更多養生資訊。

Unhealthy diets and ‘the three highs’

“I just completed a body check-up recently, and the doctor told me I’m at risk of getting the three highs. What can I do to solve this mid-life crisis?”

CheckCheckCin: The three highs refer to high blood pressure, high blood sugar, and high cholesterol, and urban dwellers tend to have these problems. Poor dietary habits such as consuming foods that are high in cholesterol, sugar, and sodium, and the lack of exercise, inability to cope with stress, and unhealthy lifestyle would cause a spike in the readings.

According to Chinese Medicine, aside from using medication, an individual should improve the body constitution and lead a healthier lifestyle if he or she wishes to get these conditions under control.

In general, individuals with the damp heat, blood stasis, and yin-deficient body constitutions would develop the three highs more easily. Individuals with a damp heat body constitution have asthenic qi and spleen, and the fluid would stagnate easily in the body. Those with the blood stasis constitution may experience the stagnation of the blood and the vein. People with a yin-deficient constitution will experience a spike in their blood pressure if they constantly mess with their biological clock.

To improve the condition of the three highs, consult registered and licensed Chinese physicians, so they can prescribe you the right medicine and customize treatment for you.Eat lighter food, take more vegetables and cut down on meat, reduce eating out and processed food, and avoid eating foods that are high in cholesterol, sugar, and sodium.

Cultivate the habit of exercising regularly. Make it a point to exercise and sweat three times a week, and each session should last at least 30 minutes. Avoid sleeping late and find the most appropriate way to relieve your stress, as negative emotions can also trigger a surge in the blood pressure.

Chinese hawthorn tea with Black fungus
Effects: Activates and cools blood, relieves obesity and hyperlipidemia.
Ingredients: 15g dried Chinese hawthorn, 15g black fungus
Preparation: Cut the ingredients into slices and place into the thermos. Rinse with hot water once. Then add in hot water again and steep for 10 minutes. This tea can be rebrewed until its flavor weakens. For best results, drink consecutively for 2-3 days a week. Two weeks for a treatment.
Note: Not suitable for pregnant women.

Comment below or like 👍🏻 this post to support us. ❤️ Follow us for more healthy living tips.

#男 #女 #我狀態OK #我有壓力 #我枯燥 #痰濕 #血瘀 #陰虛

It’s been a really sad week😭😭

Sorry guys, MIA for more than a week now. There are lots of msgs I didn’t get to reply because I haven’t been feeling so well so I’ve been sleeping throughout the whole week. My everyday routine is basically just wake up->food-> take meds->sleep.
I was in a really blur mood that week.
Started from a root canal treatment to high fever, terrible headache with painful joints (nostril definitely kena poke a lot times when you have fever at this timing)
Not just fever, but my throat and tongue is full or ulcers. I couldn’t swallow or taste anything at that time and it’s hell to me😭
Went to the doctor for my fever and I am today YO to know that I have drug allergy to certain medicines🥲 the rashes are terrible it’s all over my body, even my face. My nose, fingers and legs are swollen. Super scary to me, I don’t even dare to show it to anyone by that time because I’m afraid that it might scare others...The first thing I do every morning is to check on it hoping that it gets lighter 😭 consult a few doctors and at last I went to the hospital and got two injections on the each side of my bum😐 . Finally, the rashes are cooling down and I’m feeling so much better😭
Altho it’s been a rough journey for me but I’m still thankful that it’s not covid 🥲

Apologize to all the messages that I haven’t been able to reply on time. As I’m feeling much better now, I’ll reply them one by one.

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”

Released on Facebook @ June 24, 2020.

Something I’ve been doing aside from music...(and about two million other small things) - waring my ex-partner’s granny handmade floor mats. Miss Cakap Banyak Diary Ep. 37 is of today’s visit at Mama’s workstation.

Went over to pass her the cash I collected from past two day's sale of #Mamamats (something I promote from my personal page, not here) and to see if she has other pieces of mats that I could add onto the sales pile for tomorrow's round of drive-by-shopping.

I cannot imagine my pad without her handmade floor mats, or sleeping without her patchwork blanket. It's part of my home, and always a thrill to know that many people's homes now have Mama's handiwork too :)

Do drop me a message if you're keen to buy these mats, while stock last - till she gets the next batch of mats out in my hands. BTW - if you have old cloth material, cloth to get rid off, Mama would have use for it :) Get in touch with me.

While I wait around for my show bookings to come in again - this is my business for now :)

#misscakapbanyakdiary #misscakapbanyak #mamamats #janetleemusic #janetfashion #crochetmats #patchworkmats

Người Việt Đồng Tâm
Để tranh đấu cho công lý và hỗ trợ người dân Đồng Tâm, mỗi người dân Việt đều có thể làm nhiều việc khác nhau trong đó có phần vận động sự quan tâm và can thiệp của quốc tế. Do đó, chúng tôi kêu gọi đồng bào Việt Nam trong và ngoài nước cùng gửi điện thư (email) đến tất cả các tòa đại sứ và lãnh sự quán có mặt tại VN, Liên Hiệp Quốc, các Tổ chức quốc tế nhằm kêu gọi họ yêu cầu chính phủ Việt Nam:
- Đồng ý cho đại diện các đại sứ quán, các tổ chức trong nước và quốc tế đến thăm hỏi, tìm hiểu, giúp đỡ dân làng và các nạn nhân.
- Cho phép các tổ chức quốc tế, phóng viên quốc tế như của AP, NY Times, Reuters, RFI, CNN, Aljazeera đến Đồng Tâm để tác nghiệp và cung cấp thông tin trung thực nhất.
- Yêu cầu nhà cầm quyền Hà Nội ngừng sử dụng bạo lực, hay tiếp tục đe doạ sử dụng bạo lực cũng như chấm dứt hành vi vu cáo khủng bố đối với mọi dân làng Đồng Tâm.
Dear Sir/Madam:
It is with grave concerns that I draw your attention to the following:
•​On January 9, 2020 a violent clash over a land dispute in Dong Tam commune, Vietnam where excessive military and police force was deployed that killed an 84-year-old civilian and injured several others. The elderly who had been a vocal leader in the struggle against land confiscation was shot twice in the head and once in the chest while sleeping in his bed. Several other elderly and farmers of the same commune were arrested or assaulted and badly injured. Reportedly there were some 3000 police heavily armed with tear gas, explosives and live ammunition that launched the attack at approximately 3 a.m. on that day targeting the house of the local elderly leader. His sons were also arrested and his daughter in law and grandchildren were also hunted down while running away by police sniffer dogs.
•​This is the latest bloody conflict of land seizures in Dong Tam commune where tension has been simmering for some three years. Farmers claim that the government seizes 59 hectares (116 acres) of their farmland for the military-run Viettel Group, which is Vietnam’s largest mobile phone company, without consultation, consent and adequate compensation for the rightful owners.
•​While violent land confiscations are not uncommon in Vietnam, this is the first time the authorities claimed there had been 3 policemen killed during the attack against the rightful owners of the lands. Human Rights Watch and other international human rights organizations have urged the authorities to investigate the killings fairly and to hold accountable those who used violence and whether excessive police force was justified so as not to wrongly accuse and further victimize the victims.
•​Similarly, last year, just days before the Vietnamese traditional new year, “Tet”, on January 4 and January 8, the authorities in Ho Chi Minh city also launched an attack against the Loc Hung Vegetable Garden, a settlement area claimed by the Catholic Church and registered for agricultural use in 1991, 1995, and 2005, and ever since the land had been used by residents for growing vegetables.
•​During the two-day operation, some thousand uniformed police and plain clothes forces wearing masks equipped with about 8 bulldozers and earth movers to demolish all the houses in Loc Hung Vegetable Garden, Tan Binh district, without prior warning, proper notice, or adequate compensation for the residents.
•​This forced hundreds of displaced victims who are mostly defectors and people who had escaped the Communist regime in the North in 1954, and former prisoners of conscience, political dissidents and veterans of the former army of South Vietnam out of their homes.
•​Lawyers in the country protested against the local authorities’ abuse of power claiming the state should have issued an order for land appropriation first before any issuance of an eviction order to residents of Loc Hung Vegetable Garden.
Therefore, we earnestly ask [your embassy] [U.N. organization]…. to exert diplomatic pressure and
1. Urge the Vietnamese government to end military and police repression and abuse of powers against civilians;
2. Urge the Vietnamese government to recognize the importance of engaging in respectful dialogues and fair negotiations to solve land disputes peacefully rather than resorting to violence.
3. Urge the Vietnamese authorities to investigate with impartiality and transparency and punish all those who are responsible for the human rights violations and the violence in Loc Hung Vegetable Garden and Dong Tam commune so that there is no impunity for crimes committed by state officials.
4. Urge the Vietnamese authorities to permit access to Dong Tam and Loc Hung survivors by local and foreign journalists, diplomats, UN agency officials and other impartial observers to assess what evolved there and monitor the government’s investigation of these incidents.
5. Urge the Vietnamese government to recognize unfair and arbitrary land confiscation for economic projects displacing local people is the source of social unrest, publi

"IF YOU" / "EYES, NOSE, LIPS" - BigBang / Taeyang (English cover)
By Jonathan Wong 王梓軒 x Jill Vidal 衛詩 (feat. T-Ma)

Connect with Jonathan Wong 王梓軒:
✭ FACEBOOK - http://www.facebook.com/jonathanwongcheehynn
✭ WEIBO 微博 - http://www.weibo.com/jonwongzixuan
✭ INSTAGRAM - http://www.instagram.com/jwomusic

Connect with Jill Vidal 衛詩:
✭ FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/JillVidalOfficial
✭ WEIBO 微博 - http://tw.weibo.com/2240872452
✭ INSTAGRAM - http://instagram.com/jillvidal

*Lyric*
‘Cause I don’t need you
to tell me if I’m good enough
I’m ready to be loved
There’s a reason that it wasn't me
So baby this is goodbye
Five hundred seventy one
That’s how many days it’s been here without you
I can’t believe it’s still none
That's how much I’ve managed now to move on since you’ve been gone
I thought of all the things that I would say to her if we met
“Do you even know me?”
“Sleeping where I once slept?”
But when I see you holding on to her the way that we used to
I finally know
It’s time to let go
If you
If you
If you tell me that you really love her
I will do whatever that I have to do to hide the hurt
If you
If you
Still remember what you meant to me and me to you
That’s enough at least the things we said are still true
I loved you
Now it's time to (Love)
Someone else
Waking up alone, swollen eyes
Said I’d cry to sleep one last time
But my heart is torn in two
Oh your living was the glue, no
Gotta live me life
Brushed myself off and looked long and hard inside
Realised the pain was just in my mind
Even though you’re loving him
I know I’ll feel again
After all I’m still the man that I was before this mess
The rain will always fall like it used to
The clouds will always leave in the end
The sun will dry my tears even without you
Then we’ll start over again
I will love again (I will love again)
Losing you was not the end (Losing you was not the end)
I know this can’t be the end
‘Cause I don’t need you
to tell me if I’m good enough
I’m ready to be loved
Moving on and leaving heartbreak behind
And though your eyes, nose, lips
Are seared into my memory
They weren’t meant to be mine
There’s a reason that it wasn’t me
So baby this is goodbye

Original MV:
"IF YOU" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GgiFwpEkcw
"EYES, NOSE, LIPS" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwuAPyOImoI

============點閱以下連結欣賞其他王梓軒有關唱Cover片段===============
翻唱Firework 王梓軒夥荷李活作曲家好友為你打氣
https://youtu.be/aLQtx5lqBaI

Disney Mega Medley...with RAP?! 王梓軒 大玩迪士尼金曲串燒
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4gEHodm6tw

白色情人節特約： 表弟Presents 軒動坤情 【王梓軒 X 吳業坤 X Cousin Fung】
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I60jYlXy2D0&t=10s

王梓軒 x 衛詩《平常需要》Crazy Medley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwXQ7YsGCxU

王梓軒 X 衛蘭 feat. 何紫慧 Love Yourself X One Call Away
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKwDY1Lv-hc

王梓軒 Acapella 演繹 捉妖記插曲《米古巴》
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pKvGsup-iI

王梓軒8聲部 Acappella 演繹 愛/境外
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw4BtM6Ff48

Someday Night Live Ep.1 - 胡琳 x 王梓軒
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wMCzuPYcRU

Someday Night Live Ep.2 - 何雁詩 x 王嘉儀 x 何紫慧 x 糖兄 x Nic x 王梓軒
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC-NDw8dm8

王梓軒 Jonathan Wong x 側田 Justin Lo "Grown Up Christmas List" 音樂錄影帶 Official MV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FviJOlaXEnA

平安夜 Silent Night Featuring 何雁詩, 王嘉儀, Greg, Stephen, Simon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_eAZ_UqLig

===============================================================