Pak Yus. 30 November 2015. Isnin.
Abam. 10 Febuari 2020. Isnin.
Siti Sarah. 9 Ogos 2021. Isnin.
.
Masa arwah Pak Yus meninggal, saya ingat lagi. Astro ulang berapa kali dalam sehari bacaan Al Fatihah untuk arwah. Masa tu arwah masuk Raja Parodi. Lepas arwah meninggal, minggu tu rancangan tu ditangguh sementara semata-mata nak buat tribute untuk arwah.
Berminggu-minggu orang cerita kebaikan dia. Akhirnya pecah rahsia amalan arwah yang suka bersedekah. Ada pusat anak yatim di Kedah terima wang belanja setiap bulan dari arwah Pak Yus. Saya ingat lagi ayat pengetua tempat tu, "Lepas ni takda lagi lah nak bagi kami bantuan tiap bulan".
.
Kemudian tahun lepas, Abam. Fad dan Achey setiap kali bercakap pasal arwah mesti menangis. Begitulah juga pun ceritanya. Yang baik-baik belaka. Terutama bab suka tolong orang.
Paling kita ingat kisah arwah Abam jaga mak dia. Setia sungguh. Baik sungguh. Lembut sungguh. Sampai mak dia kata, "Siapa lah nak jaga makcik kalau Abam takda".
.
Semalam pula Siti Sarah. Satu Malaysia. Dari Dato' Seri Najib, Anwar Ibrahim, Ebit Lew, Prof Muhaya, Ustazah Asma Harun, Ustazah Noor Bahyah. Setiap golongan. Segenap lapisan. Semua doakan arwah. Sampai menangis kita walau tak pernah jumpa dia.
Tuan Nadir kongsikan kisah arwah bagi korban berbelas ribu untuk Gaza. Masa jenazah arwah sedang diuruskan, team BeePrihatin post di ig. Orangnya dah takda tapi sedekahnya sedang berjalan. Dalam live di tanah perkuburan saya nampak ada orang komen. Dia ingat lagi masa Siti Sarah dan Shuib bagi bantuan banjir di Pahang.
.
Lalu dari 3 manusia berbeza ini, ada satu pengajaran yang sama.
1. Tak kira kita di posisi apa pun, Allah tahu nilai kita. Kita artis. Kita pemimpin. Atau kita bukan siapa-siapa. Bila saja Allah kata Dia akan angkat nama kita, Dia akan buat. Walau dari tempat yang serendah mana. Sebab Allah saja yang kenal diri kita sebenar apa.
2. Sebab itu jangan ada sangkaan pada sesiapa. Kita tak tahu apa pengakhiran setiap manusia. Juga kita tak tahu apa amalan rahsia dia yang Allah terima. Dan kita tak tahu dari bab mana tentang dia yang Allah redha. Anggap semua manusia baik. Yang tak baik hanya kita.
3. Sentiasa senangkan hati semua orang. Jangan buat orang susah hati sebab sikap kita. Apatah lagi kita nak susah hati dengan sikap orang pada kita. Orang yang penyayang sentiasa hatinya lapang. Dia cuma pandai suka. Tanpa ada prasangka.
4. Mereka semua orang susah masa kecik. Yus anak yatim. Abam dah takda ayah dan maknya pula sakit. Siti Sarah pernah cerita kena tolak gerai pukul 5 pagi sebelum pergi sekolah. Hidup ni macam roda. Allah boleh bagi sangat susah. Dan tiba-tiba boleh bagi sangat mewah.
5. Saat diuji dengan kesusahan mereka bersabar. Kemudian diuji pula dengan kekayaan tapi tak lupa diri. Apa Allah bagi, mereka bagi balik. Biasanya ujian susah ni orang boleh sabar. Tapi ujian senang ni selalu buat kita lupa untuk bersyukur. Buat kita rasa tak cukup. Takut nak bagi pada orang.
6. Kebaikan ni sama bagai minyak wangi. Dia meruap. Bila mana kita sorok tak bagi nampak pun, Allah akan tunjuk. Lepas tunjuk satu, keluar satu lagi. Dan lagi. Akan pecah harumnya sama macam pecahnya bau minyak wangi. Jika tidak masa kita hidup, waktu kita telah mati.
7. Tinggalkan bakti dalam hidup orang yang kita sayang. Seikhlas hati. Pak Yus suka tolong anak yatim. Abam sabar jaga mak sakit. Siti Sarah punya taatnya pada suami, stokin pun dia sarungkan.
8. Tinggalkan impak pada orang keliling yang ada. Sehingga semua orang ada memori istimewa yang berbeza dengan kita tiap satunya. Ada kisah manis yang terus hidup walau saat kita telah tiada.
Hidup seketika biar beri makna.
Siti Suryani Yaakop
#kaknis
同時也有308部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過5,230的網紅初心者鉄道探検隊,也在其Youtube影片中提到,カメラはGoPro HERO 9を使用しています→https://amzn.to/2PD1q7k GoPro自撮り棒 + 三脚 + セルカ棒→https://amzn.to/2PxiMCA 鉄道の基礎知識[増補改訂版]→https://amzn.to/2Po6dtx レールウェイ マップル 全国鉄道...
「november 2015」的推薦目錄:
- 關於november 2015 在 Syatilla Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於november 2015 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於november 2015 在 Cổ Động Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於november 2015 在 初心者鉄道探検隊 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於november 2015 在 初心者鉄道探検隊 Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於november 2015 在 初心者鉄道探検隊 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於november 2015 在 '10.01pm': Victim of November 2015 Paris attacks recounts ... 的評價
- 關於november 2015 在 (Saturday) November 2015 。課堂點滴 - Facebook 的評價
- 關於november 2015 在 立冬. 8th November. 2015 | Art design, Fonts design, Cartoon 的評價
november 2015 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最讚貼文
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”
november 2015 在 Cổ Động Facebook 的精選貼文
TRONGCHIT: 'TÔI NGƯỜI HẢI PHÒNG' LÀ KHỞI ĐẦU CỦA DỰ ÁN YÊU THƯƠNG
Đoàn Phú Trọng thường được anh em gọi với cái tên Trongchit. Anh sinh ra và lớn lên ở Hải Phòng, hiện tại anh là nhà thiết kế tự do, chuyên về thiết kế logo và nhận diện thương hiệu. Năm 2013, dự án Unlimited Letters của Trongchit và Liar Ben ra đời đã nhận được sự chú ý và đón nhận tích cực từ cộng đồng. Unlimited Letters với sự tham gia của 33 nghệ sĩ trên khắp cả nước cũng đã trở thành nguồn cảm hứng cho nhiều dự án vẽ/viết chữ về sau.
Là một nhà thiết kế với niềm đam mê với Graffiti & Typography, đầu tháng 5 vừa rồi, Trongchit đã hoàn thiện tác phẩm mới, nằm trong dự án Yêu Thương của anh. Và Tôi Người Hải Phòng mới chỉ là một trong những tác phẩm của dự án đó. Trông ngầu ngầu nhưng lại rất hiền, cùng trò chuyện với Trongchit về những dự án thú vị bên con chữ nhé!
🙏Hỏi: Trongchit đến với Lettering như thế nào?
🔥Trả lời: Chắc phải quay trở về hơn mười năm trước, khi đó mình bắt đầu chơi trong cộng đồng Graffiti Việt Nam, lúc đó mình cũng có biết những khái niệm cơ bản về Graffiti, Street Art, Calligraffiti nhưng lúc đó mình chưa thực sự tìm hiểu nhiều về chữ.
Sau đó mình học Hàng Hải, bắt đầu công việc đi tàu và trở thành thủy thủ thì mình mới có những trải nghiệm đầu tiên trong việc thực hành kẻ, vẽ chữ. Nhớ hồi đó nhờ thuyền trưởng hay lệnh cho mình đi vẽ mấy chữ trên tàu, như No Smoking, Safety First.
Thời gian trên tàu mình có tham gia cuộc thi Just Do It do FPT-Arena năm 2011 và cũng may mắn khi được giải nhất cuộc thi đó và được cấp học bổng toàn phần. Có thể nói sự kiện này là một bước ngoặt rất lớn trong cuộc đời và từ đó là mình chuyển hoàn toàn sang công việc thiết kế.
Giai đoạn đầu làm thiết kế thì mình bắt đầu với việc thiết kế logo, rồi có thời gian làm cả mảng minh họa nếu yêu cầu công việc cần. Có một kỉ niệm hồi 2015 là mình thiết kế chữ New York và được H&M mua lại. Thời điểm đó với mình thực sự rất đặc biệt khi đó là lần đầu tiên mình được làm việc với một trong những thương hiệu lớn trên thế giới, sau đó thì mình nghiêm túc hơn và dành khá nhiều thời gian để thực hành chữ.
🙏Hỏi: Có nghệ sĩ nào ảnh hưởng tới Trongchit không?
🔥Trả lời: Thời gian học tại FPT-Arena, mình có dịp gặp gỡ và học cùng anh Hà Dũng Hiệp. Anh cũng là người truyền cảm hứng rất nhiều cho mình. Vẫn nhớ lần đầu tiên được xem những sản phẩm anh Hiệp thiết kế, đặc biệt là về logo và typography, mình đã cảm thấy rất đặc biệt và cũng muốn thử làm với nó. Ngày trước mình cũng có tham gia một vài workshop anh Hiệp dạy về typography, cứ chiều bắt xe lên học, học xong tối lại bắt xe về Hải Phòng.
🙏Hỏi: Một vài dự án mà Trongchit từng làm liên quan đến “viết chữ”?
🔥Trả lời: Đầu tiên, dự án mà mình nhớ nhất là Unlimited Letters, dự án này mình với Liar Ben, một người anh em thân thiết của mình ở Sài Gòn đồng sáng lập. Dự án được tổ chức vào năm 2013, là nơi quy tụ của rất nhiều nhà thiết kế, nghệ sĩ đến từ nhiều lĩnh vực trong ngành sáng tạo lúc bấy giờ tại Việt Nam.
Tiếp theo là dự án thiết kế logo cho hãng phim November Films của đạo diễn Victor Vũ, và cùng với đó là thiết kế tiêu đề cho các bộ phim của anh như Lôi Báo, Người Bất Tử. Gần đây nhất là một dự án mà mình rất tự hào khi được tham gia đó là thiết kế tựa đề cho bộ phim Trạng Tí của chị Ngô Thanh Vân sản xuất và đạo diễn là anh Phan Gia Nhật Linh.
🙏Hỏi: Dự án nào Trongchit cảm thấy ấn tượng nhất?
🔥Trả lời: Với mình mỗi dự án đều có cái hay riêng, cho dù đó là dự án thương mại, dự án cá nhân hay những dự án hướng tới cộng đồng. Mỗi dự án trong những lĩnh vực khác nhau đều cho mình những trải nghiệm khác nhau, chưa kể qua những dự án đó mình được gặp rất nhiều người thú vị và điều này giúp mình học hỏi được rất nhiều điều.
🙏Hỏi: Vậy còn Unlimited Letters?
🔥Trả lời: Unlimited Letters là dự án khá đặc biệt với mình. Tại thời điểm đó nó gần như là một làn gió mới, một dự án đầu tiên kết nối được 33 nhà thiết kế, nghệ sĩ đến từ rất nhiều lĩnh vực tham gia. Qua dự án này, mình nhận được rất nhiều bài học đến từ việc kết nối nghệ sĩ, tổ chức, điều hành và sản xuất cho dự án. Unlimited Letters đã được tổ chức triển lãm ở 3 thành phố lớn là Hà Nội, Sài Gòn và Hải Phòng.
🙏Hỏi: Cảm hứng sáng tác của Trongchit đến từ đâu?
🔥Trả lời: Cảm hứng sáng tác của mình đến từ việc lắng nghe và quan sát mọi thứ xảy ra xung quanh, đôi khi là những buổi đi lang thang, những chuyến du lịch với anh em bạn bè. Nhưng có điều mình là người làm việc đôi khi không cần phải chờ cảm hứng đến, nó đến khi mình làm việc chăm chỉ và có trách nhiệm.
🙏Hỏi: Hải Phòng trong mắt Trongchit như thế nào?
🔥Trả lời: Thân thương. Nhịp sống nơi đây khá nhẹ nhàng, chưa bị đông và xô bồ như những thành phố lớn khác. Đồ ăn thì tuyệt vời, con người nơi đây vô cùng mến khách.
Nhớ ngày xưa thời mình còn đi tàu cả năm lênh đênh trên biển, bước đầu tiên khi được chạm chân xuống mảnh đất quê hương luôn làm mình bồi hồi và cực kỳ xúc động.
🙏Hỏi: Trongchit chia sẻ cụ thể về dự án Yêu Thương nhé?
🔥Trả lời:
*Ý tưởng và lý do ra đời
Ý tưởng về dự án Yêu Thương xuất phát trong quá trình mình tìm hiểu về Phật giáo. Thời điểm đó mình có đọc khá nhiều sách và xem các bài giảng của Thầy Thích Nhất Hạnh. Đặc biệt là xem xong bộ phim Walk With Me - bộ phim tài liệu về Thiền sư Thích Nhất Hạnh và các tăng thân làng Mai. Tại thời điểm đó bộ phim đã thực sự chạm đến trái tim và giúp mình unlock được rất nhiều thứ.
Bên cạnh đó mình cũng có tìm hiểu về tục xin chữ đầu năm. Mỗi năm vào dịp Tết đến xuân về, người dân có thói quen xin chữ treo trong nhà để cầu may mắn, tài lộc hay sức khỏe. Với mình đây là một nét đẹp về văn hóa và có nhiều ý nghĩa. Và có lẽ vì là một người chuyên làm và vẽ chữ nên mình cũng muốn tự vẽ trong nhà.
Cách đây 2 năm, mình vẽ chữ Yêu Thương khá lớn và rất màu sắc ngay trong bếp để cả gia đình lúc ăn cơm đều có thể nhìn được nó. Mình thực sự cảm nhận được năng lượng mà thông điệp Yêu Thương đó mang lại. Nó giúp mình rất lớn trong việc kết nối những thành viên trong gia đình lại với nhau, với bố mẹ, với vợ và các con, đặc biệt là thực sự kết nối với chính bản thân mình.
Gần đây, mình có được mời tham gia vào một dự án về lụa tại Việt Nam, lụa dệt hoàn toàn thủ công và nhuộm màu bằng củ quả. Có thể nói mỗi mảnh lụa là biết bao mồ hôi, công sức của người nghệ nhân và thực sự nó đẹp như những tác phẩm nghệ thuật. Qua tiếp xúc và nói chuyện với bác nghệ nhân, mình cảm nhận được tình yêu, sự tâm huyết của bác với nghề cho dù năm nay bác đã gần 90 tuổi.
Sau đó mình có ý nghĩ rằng tại sao không đem thông điệp này để vẽ ra những khu sinh hoạt cộng đồng rộng lớn hơn, để nhiều người có thể đọc được nó. Đôi lúc mình nghĩ giữa cuộc sống bận rộn và xô bồ như thế này, biết đâu đó trong những lúc mệt mỏi, họ sẽ đọc được và cảm nhận được năng lượng từ đó.
*Sự ủng hộ từ chính quyền địa phương và bạn bè
Mình có chia sẻ câu chuyện này với những người anh em thân thiết trong team Highphong thì mọi người đều rất ủng hộ và quyết tâm phải thực hiện cho bằng được dự án. Mấy anh em cùng nhau đi tìm tường, rồi tìm cách liên hệ với chính quyền để xin giấy phép, liên hệ các bên để xin tài trợ.
Về cơ bản mấy anh em đều không coi đây là công việc mà chỉ nghĩ đơn giản là mọi người đang có một dự án và cùng nhau chơi với nó. Đặc biệt, anh em 16 NorthSide còn ra vẽ cùng với mình và giúp mình chia sẻ thông tin về dự án này.
Vì muốn thực hiện dự án ở những địa điểm đẹp nhất và những khu vực đông người qua lại trong thành phố nên việc xin cấp phép dự án lúc đầu cũng gặp đôi chút trở ngại. Tuy nhiên, mình vô cùng may mắn khi mình nhận được sự giúp đỡ từ rất nhiều các anh chị, bạn bè cả về vật chất và cả trong việc xin cấp phép. Thời điểm hiện tại dự án đã được Thành Đoàn Hải Phòng cùng Hội Liên hiệp Thanh niên Việt Nam đồng hành và hỗ trợ rất nhiều.
*Quá trình thực hiện tác phẩm
Mình bắt đầu dự án bằng chính thông điệp mang tên Yêu Thương. Tuy nhiên, tác phẩm này mới xong được một nửa khi mới hoàn thiện được phần thông điệp chính, do cầu đang trong quá trình xây dựng nên bọn mình chờ cầu bàn giao lại cho thành phố rồi sẽ triển khai tiếp. Trong quá trình đó, anh em mở rộng dự án và lan tỏa những thông điệp tiếp theo.
Tác phẩm mới nhất mà mình và anh em vừa thực hiện xong tên là Tôi Người Hải Phòng. Tác phẩm thể hiện sự tự hào về nơi mình sinh ra và lớn lên. Nằm trên con phố đi bộ Thế Lữ bên dòng sông Tam Bạc nằm ngay trong trung tâm thành phố, đây có thể nói là một vị trí cực kì đẹp mà khó có thể có bức tường thứ hai như thế.
Tôi Người Hải Phòng được mình cùng anh em em thực hiện trong 2 ngày. Trong team Highphong thì có anh Hoàng, Sơn và Phúc - những người luôn sát cánh với mình. Anh em nhà Snaketats đã đến và phụ giúp mọi người rất nhiều trong quá trình vẽ. Thái Lê, Ngọc Nguyễn, anh Thanh và Phúc Nguyễn Production đã giúp mình chụp hình và quay phim lại toàn bộ dự án. Và còn rất nhiều các anh chị, bạn bè khác cũng đã ủng hộ nhóm về cả vật chất và tinh thần để thực hiện dự án này.
*Những tác phẩm tiếp theo
Bọn mình sẽ tiếp tục vẽ thêm những tác phẩm ở nhiều địa điểm khác nhau trong thành phố nhằm lan tỏa những thông điệp tích cực tới cộng đồng. Địa điểm tiếp theo cả nhóm sẽ thực hiện dự án chính là Ga Hải Phòng - một công trình đã có hơn 100 năm lịch sử và vẫn giữ được vẻ cổ kính in đậm kiến trúc Pháp. Đây cũng là một trong những địa điểm thu hút khách du lịch khi đặt chân tới Hải Phòng.
...
Hiện tại với tình hình dịch bệch vẫn đang diễn ra, tác phẩm cũng đang được đeo khẩu trang. Mong mọi người tuân thủ và thực hiện nghiêm các quy định phòng/chống dịch để có thể chiêm ngưỡng tác phẩm trong thời gian tới.
november 2015 在 初心者鉄道探検隊 Youtube 的最佳貼文
カメラはGoPro HERO 9を使用しています→https://amzn.to/2PD1q7k
GoPro自撮り棒 + 三脚 + セルカ棒→https://amzn.to/2PxiMCA
鉄道の基礎知識[増補改訂版]→https://amzn.to/2Po6dtx
レールウェイ マップル 全国鉄道地図帳 https://amzn.to/2PQ6rd1
格安ドメイン取得サービス!ムームードメイン
https://px.a8.net/svt/ejp?a8mat=3BICLD+B0IR7M+348+1BQBKJ
ナウでヤングなレンタルサーバー!ロリポップ!
https://px.a8.net/svt/ejp?a8mat=3BICLD+BZ1UR6+348+60WN7
オンライン予約・決済可能な日本旅行「赤い風船」国内宿泊
https://px.a8.net/svt/ejp?a8mat=3BG373+7K36JU+Z9G+C2O5F
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
2021年8月11日撮影
京成曳舟駅(けいせいひきふねえき)
京成電鉄。押上線。
1912年(大正元年)11月3日 曳舟駅として開業。
1931年(昭和6年)11月18日 京成曳舟駅に改称。
1969年(昭和44年)5月 八広方にホームを移設し、ホーム長を8両編成に対応。
2010年(平成22年)7月17日 ダイヤ改正により急行が廃止され、普通のみの停車駅となる。
2013年(平成25年)8月24日 上り線が高架化。
2015年(平成27年)8月22日 下り線が高架化。
2017年(平成29年)4月1日 中層階通路および墨田区設置の昇降施設(エレベーター1基・エスカレーター1基)供用開始。
2020年(令和2年)度の1日平均乗降人員は15,082人で、京成線の駅では第24位。
The camera uses GoPro HERO 9
Keisei-Hikifune Station
Keisei Electric Railway. Oshiage line.
It opened on November 3, 1912.
The average daily number of passengers getting on and off in 2020 was 15,082, ranking 24th at Keisei Line stations.
相機使用 GoPro HERO 9
京成曳船站
京成電鐵。 押上線。
它於 1912 年 11 月 3 日開放。
2020年日均上下車乘客人數為15,082人次,在京成線車站排名第24位。
相机使用 GoPro HERO 9
京成曳船站
京成电铁。押上线。
它于 1912 年 11 月 3 日开放。
2020年日均上下车乘客人数为15,082人次,在京成线车站排名第24位。
카메라는 GoPro HERO 9를 사용하고 있습니다
게이 세이 히키 후네 역
게이 세이 전철. 오시아게 선.
1912 년 11 월 3 일 개관했다.
2020 년도 1 일 평균 승강 인원은 15,082 명으로, 케이 세이 선 역에서는 24 위.
november 2015 在 初心者鉄道探検隊 Youtube 的最佳解答
カメラはGoPro HERO 9を使用しています→https://amzn.to/2PD1q7k
GoPro自撮り棒 + 三脚 + セルカ棒→https://amzn.to/2PxiMCA
鉄道の基礎知識[増補改訂版]→https://amzn.to/2Po6dtx
レールウェイ マップル 全国鉄道地図帳 https://amzn.to/2PQ6rd1
格安ドメイン取得サービス!ムームードメイン
https://px.a8.net/svt/ejp?a8mat=3BICLD+B0IR7M+348+1BQBKJ
ナウでヤングなレンタルサーバー!ロリポップ!
https://px.a8.net/svt/ejp?a8mat=3BICLD+BZ1UR6+348+60WN7
オンライン予約・決済可能な日本旅行「赤い風船」国内宿泊
https://px.a8.net/svt/ejp?a8mat=3BG373+7K36JU+Z9G+C2O5F
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
2021年6月29日撮影
水沢駅(みずさわえき)
JR東日本。東北本線
1890年(明治23年)11月1日 日本鉄道の駅として開業。一般駅。
1906年(明治39年)11月1日 日本鉄道が国有化。
1909年(明治42年)10月12日 線路名称制定、東北本線所属駅となる。
1986年(昭和61年)11月1日 荷物の取扱を廃止。
1987年(昭和62年)4月1日 国鉄分割民営化により、JR東日本・JR貨物の駅となる。
1993年(平成5年)3月 キャタピラー式車いす用階段昇降機を配備。
2001年(平成13年)3月15日 跨線橋に車いす対応エスカレーターを設置。
2006年(平成18年)7月20日 貨物駅改良工事完成、新ホーム使用開始。
2008年(平成20年)12月1日「水沢駅旅行センター」が「びゅうプラザ水沢駅」に格上げ。
2010年(平成22年)2月 指定席券売機を設置。
2015年(平成27年)
4月16日 「びゅうプラザ水沢駅」が閉鎖。
7月1日 観光案内所が無人化。
12月1日 業務委託化。水沢駅長が廃止され、一ノ関駅長管理下となる。陸中折居駅と当駅の管理業務は一ノ関駅へ、金ケ崎駅の管理業務は北上駅へ移管。
2020年度(令和2年度)の1日平均乗車人員は1,588人。
大谷翔平は岩手県水沢市(現在の奥州市)に、社会人野球の選手だった父とバドミントン選手の母を持つ、スポーツマンの両親の家に、三人兄弟の末っ子として生まれた。
The camera uses GoPro HERO 9
Mizusawa Station
JR East. Tohoku Line
It opened on November 1, 1890.
The average daily number of passengers in 2020 is 1,588.
相機使用 GoPro HERO 9
水澤站
JR東。 東北本線
它於 1890 年 11 月 1 日開業。
2020 年的平均每日乘客人數為 1,588 人。
相机使用 GoPro HERO 9
水泽站
JR东。东北本线
它于 1890 年 11 月 1 日开业。
2020 年的平均每日乘客人数为 1,588 人。
카메라는 GoPro HERO 9를 사용하고 있습니다
미즈사와 역
JR 동일본. 도호쿠 본선
1890 년 11 월 1 일에 개업했다.
2020 년도 1 일 평균 승차 인원은 1,588 명.
november 2015 在 初心者鉄道探検隊 Youtube 的最佳貼文
カメラはGoPro HERO 9を使用しています→https://amzn.to/2PD1q7k
GoPro自撮り棒 + 三脚 + セルカ棒→https://amzn.to/2PxiMCA
鉄道の基礎知識[増補改訂版]→https://amzn.to/2Po6dtx
レールウェイ マップル 全国鉄道地図帳 https://amzn.to/2PQ6rd1
格安ドメイン取得サービス!ムームードメイン
https://px.a8.net/svt/ejp?a8mat=3BICLD+B0IR7M+348+1BQBKJ
ナウでヤングなレンタルサーバー!ロリポップ!
https://px.a8.net/svt/ejp?a8mat=3BICLD+BZ1UR6+348+60WN7
オンライン予約・決済可能な日本旅行「赤い風船」国内宿泊
https://px.a8.net/svt/ejp?a8mat=3BG373+7K36JU+Z9G+C2O5F
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
2021年6月29日撮影
北上駅(きたかみえき)
JR東日本。東北新幹線
1890年(明治23年)11月1日 日本鉄道の黒沢尻駅(くろさわじりえき)として開業。
1906年(明治39年)11月1日 日本鉄道が国有化、官設鉄道の駅となる。
1921年(大正10年)3月25日 横黒線(現在の北上線)が開業。
1954年(昭和29年)11月10日 北上駅に改称。
1982年(昭和57年)6月23日 東北新幹線開業。
1986年(昭和61年)11月1日 東口を開設。荷物、専用線発着を除く貨物の取扱を廃止。
1987年(昭和62年)4月1日 国鉄分割民営化により、JR東日本・JR貨物の駅となる。
2008年(平成20年)12月3日 西口在来線改札口に自動改札機を設置。
2015年(平成27年)12月1日 水沢駅の業務委託化に伴い、金ケ崎駅の管理業務が当駅に移管される。
2017年(平成29年)4月1日 花巻駅の業務委託化に伴い、東北本線花巻駅 - 石鳥谷駅間、釜石線似内駅 - 晴山駅間(新花巻駅を除く)の管理業務が当駅に移管される。
2018年(平成30年)10月1日 東口の業務をJR東日本東北総合サービスに委託。
2020年(令和2年)3月14日 新幹線eチケットサービス開始。
2021年(令和3年)3月13日 タッチでGo!新幹線のサービスを開始。
2020年度の新幹線の1日平均乗車人員は755人。
The camera uses GoPro HERO 9
Kitakami Station
JR East. Tohoku Shinkansen
It opened on November 1, 1890.
The Tohoku Shinkansen opened on June 23, 1982.
The average daily number of passengers on the Shinkansen in 2020 is 755.
相機使用 GoPro HERO 9
北上站
JR東。 東北新幹線
它於 1890 年 11 月 1 日開業。
東北新幹線於 1982 年 6 月 23 日開通。
2020 年新幹線的日均乘客人數為 755 人。
相机使用 GoPro HERO 9
北上站
JR东。东北新干线
它于 1890 年 11 月 1 日开业。
东北新干线于 1982 年 6 月 23 日开通。
2020 年新干线的日均乘客人数为 755 人。
카메라는 GoPro HERO 9를 사용하고 있습니다
기타카미 역
JR 동일본. 도호쿠 신칸센
1890 년 11 월 1 일에 개업했다.
1982 년 6 월 23 일에 도호쿠 신칸센이 개업했다.
2020 년 신칸센의 1 일 평균 승차 인원은 755 명.
november 2015 在 (Saturday) November 2015 。課堂點滴 - Facebook 的推薦與評價
Facebook. facebook · See More Photos… (Saturday) November 2015 。課堂點滴. Loading... Try Again. Cancel. Loading... Loading... ... <看更多>
november 2015 在 立冬. 8th November. 2015 | Art design, Fonts design, Cartoon 的推薦與評價
Pinterest Lite. Save space on your device. Explore · Art. 立冬. 8th November. 2015 Typeface, Design Art, Fonts, Calligraphy, Cartoon. ... <看更多>
november 2015 在 '10.01pm': Victim of November 2015 Paris attacks recounts ... 的推薦與評價
From his Paris window, he saw the horror of the November 13, 2015 attacks and filmed the terror. Daniel Psenny, who was working as a ... ... <看更多>