關於 this is mr. b ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Sawadeekha! 🙏🙏
.
Do you love Thai food? Many of us including myself love Thai food, snacks, and drinks because of its rich and vibrant flavors of sweet, sour, salty, and spicy. 🥰🥰
.
We have many Thai F&B brands here due to strong demand. For those who would like explore Thai F&B import and export market, you must not miss out THAIFEX Virtual Trade Show 2021, Asia’s leading food and beverage trade exhibition. ✨✨
.
Due to the pandemic, THAIFEX 2021 exhibition has switched to focus on Virtual Trade Show (VTS). It’s happening from 29th September to 03rd October, 2021. 💥💥
.
VTS serves as an ideal business matching platform for Malaysian importers. Swipe left to check out how to access THAIFEX VTS 2021, register, request, and join the business matching session. 🇲🇾🇹🇭
.
If you wish to participate in the VTS and view the unique culinary on offer, you may register at https://thaifex-vts.com/
.
According to Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister, The Honorable, Mr. Jurin Laksanawisit, “This THAIFEX– Virtual Trade Show (VTS) 2021 is aiming to focus on being the 24 hours online platform for importers, trade partners and international entrepreneurs to meet and negotiate deals with Thai food and beverage operators participating in THAIFEX - ANUGA ASIA 2021 “The Hybrid Edition”.
.
THAIFEX-Anuga Asia
#TTCKL #DITP #Thaifex2021 #ThaifexAnugaAsia2021 #FoodsExhibition #ImportExport #ExhibitioninThailand #HybridExhibition #VirtualExhibition #Newnormal2021 #IMportThaiFoods #ThaiFoods #FoodsandBeverages #FoodsFair #OverseaTrades #ThailandMalayisaBusiness #ThaiExhibitors

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”

最近印度德里市長說，那個「新加坡變種」病毒很毒，尤其對小朋友很危險！
　
然後新加坡就怒了 XD
　
新加坡的衛福部長說，新加坡最近流行的 B.1.617.2，是從印度來的，沒有什麼新加坡變種這回事。（翻譯：你才變種，你全國都變種。）
　
然後印度的外交部長也出來緩頰，說：那個市長講的不能代表我們印度啦。
　
專家則是認為，新加坡的傳播鍊並不是太巨大（跟印度比？），所以要養出一個新的變種機率雖有，但實在不大。
　
是說新加坡的反應，真的很 Errr...... 小中國。
　
只是我也不確定，如果臺灣哪天也被他國講個臺灣變種病毒 Taiwan variant，我們的政府跟人民會是什麼反應。
　
說不定中國會強烈譴責，並指定要改為 Taiwan, China variant 呢？XDD
　
「Singapore's ministry of health has reacted strongly to the claims.
　
"The strain that is prevalent in many of the Covid-19 cases in recent weeks is the B.1.617.2 variant, which originated in India. Phylogenetic testing has shown this B.1.617.2 variant to be associated with several clusters in Singapore," Singapore's Ministry of Health said in a statement.
　
"There is no 'Singapore variant'."
　
Singapore's Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan also tweeted, saying "politicians should stick to facts".
　
India's foreign minister S Jaishankar responded on Wednesday, saying Mr Kejriwal did not speak "for India".」

あのつけ麺、小金井のお店に初訪問！東京都小金井市『大勝軒小金井』に初訪問してきました。つけ麺の発祥は“ラーメンの神様”と呼ばれ、“ラーメンの鬼”佐野実氏が唯一尊敬する人物と公言していた山岸一雄氏によるもの、というのが定説だそうです。こちらは氏が創業した「大勝軒」の暖簾分け店であり、その精神を受け継いだ一杯が味わえます。美味しく頂きましたので早速ご覧ください！

＊感染対策を徹底して撮影を行っています。
＊撮影に際しては、お店の方や周りのお客様に充分配慮して撮影をおこなっています。


First visit to that Tsukemen shop in Koganei! I visited "Taishoken Koganei" in Koganei City, Tokyo for the first time. It is said that the origin of tsukemen is called "the god of ramen" and that it is due to Mr. Kazuo Yamagishi, who was professed to be the only person whom "ramen demon" Minoru Sano respects. This shop is a warm-up restaurant of "Taishoken", which he founded, and you can enjoy a cup that inherits that spirit. It was delicious so please have a look!
* We take thorough measures against infection.
* When shooting, we give due consideration to the shop and customers around us.

いつもありがとうございます！( ´ ▽ ` )
高評価＆チャンネル登録もよろしくお願いいたします！

#つけ麺 #小金井 #大勝軒 #ロイドごはん #大食い


—————《サブチャンネルもよろしくお願いします！ sub channel》—————————————

【メロンシートジャーニー】
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNlBAUziFWkJZFY_u3t65A

【フラメンコロイド】
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsFJHNg3SR41R2a3vctUInw


—————《本日の店舗情報》—————————————————

『大勝軒 小金井』
https://tabelog.com/tokyo/A1325/A132501/13016153/

—————《ロイドごはんオススメの動画！　 ROIDGOHANs’ Recommended video》———————————

78才おじいちゃん屋台ラーメンの朝『幸っちゃん』夜明けの銀座【飯テロ】Old Style Ramen Stall Yatai Japanese Street Food
https://youtu.be/YHiWYvhxUI4

【家系ラーメン特集!】
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6yW17uB9uIVUmOS8qnXrRwcBu8W-uRYZ

神回【ラーメン二郎の貴重映像】全増しが出来るまで一部始終を大公開！【ラーメン二郎 ひばりヶ丘店】ramen
https://youtu.be/mBFcdMHyaxA


—————《関連動画》———————————

【つけ麺の元祖】結局のところ大勝軒なんだよなあ！元祖もりそばカレーセットをすする お茶の水、大勝軒 BRANCHING【飯テロ】SUSURU TV
https://youtu.be/uDMWFbC7wNQ

【麺テロ】池袋で実際に食べて美味すぎたラーメン屋Ramen11選！【まとめ】
https://youtu.be/CwDvP9a5eoA

【大食い】大勝軒系列のお店でデカ盛りラーメン（5kg超）をちゃんと食べてみた‼️【MAX鈴木】【マックス鈴木】【Max Suzuki】
https://youtu.be/w7sJ4GtdERA

🤍點開資訊欄🤍

才剛安頓下來又覺得開始忙很多事情 不過忙絕對是好事～
影片並沒有錄我去工作什麼的 因為我覺得工作跟之前當學生是不一樣的
當學生的時候我想錄什麼就錄什麼 沒人會覺得怎樣
現在不同身份真的想法會有點不同 就覺得不是自己想怎樣就可以怎樣xd
不過伴奏是可以錄的 只是我沒錄而已：））
總之關於工作的一切 之後覺得時機對了再跟大家分享
也希望大家都可以理解～
會在資訊欄打這些只是避免又有人來罵我不務正業：）））不然這些其實我好像也沒有必要交代xd
總之我很滿意現在的新生活！換一個地方住真的整個心情都不一樣！
其實我以前就有黑膠唱片、也有一大堆古典音樂的CD 但沒有機器讓我播
買了這台真的很開心！覺得很值得～想放鬆心情的時候就會播一下！
不過我就覺得黑膠唱片機播出來的聲音沒有到超級準 這是唯一一個小缺點哈哈哈哈哈

影片裡介紹的Fedoma 他們家的飾品質感真的都超～好！我超推薦！
是我目前接過的飾品合作裡 質感最棒的一家 真的一分錢一分貨
雖然是跟他們合作 但是所有飾品都是我自己在他們網站挑選 看對眼才選的！
我選的三個耳環我最近都非常常戴～在家的時候戴小的耳環 出去戴圈圈或是珍珠耳環 項鍊我最常戴的就是微笑項鍊哈哈哈哈
以下提供所有的連結🔗！

✨Fedoma✨
Jessica Alizzi Gold Buckle Earrings(圈圈耳環)
https://lddy.no/10vic
Beigy Necklace(微笑/月亮項鍊)
https://lddy.no/10vig
Sue Earrings(裡面有一顆珍珠的耳環)
https://lddy.no/10vie
Tiny Sweetheart Earrings(小顆的耳環)
https://lddy.no/10via
Atania Necklace(很復古感的項鍊!)
https://lddy.no/10vif
Goji Necklace(珍珠項鍊)
https://lddy.no/10vih

再來是平常幾乎不打折的Beara Beara👝
現在可以使用我的9折折扣碼「amanda」
期限至9/26（全品項都適用！！）
有追蹤我instagram的人應該常常看到我在story背影片裡這款包包
https://bearabeara.co.uk/product/amanda-navy
很常背的原因是因為它真的很輕！不到300公克！
再來就是它顏值很高哈哈哈 做得很復古、然後材質是麂皮的
顏色雖然官網是寫navy(深藍色) 但是我真的怎麼看都覺得是黑色😂
現在購買會附贈特別訂製全絲質絲巾（售價55英鎊）～

最後！今天台灣時間(9/12)晚上11:59
貓咪跟芝加哥tshirt的預購就要收單了！所以想買的人要快！
不然之後就是有現貨才會再通知大家
我跟selina昨天晚上有直播回答一些關於衣服尺寸的問題
直播連結在這：https://www.instagram.com/tv/CTqphKxAOV8/
官網連結在這：https://www.theintuition.co/
*輸入9lives兩件免運的部分只限於台灣地區唷！*
官網都有我們穿什麼尺寸的分享 那如果有其它問題 都請麻煩私訊intuition.store的instagram～

💫這邊放些我覺得你們會問的商品連結💫

黑膠唱片機 https://bit.ly/3hoxBlY
我是在best buy網站買的 但我看到amazon也有賣～

仙人掌貓抓板 https://bit.ly/3jrt3fN
平常喂的乾食 https://bit.ly/30J9k1c
平常喂的濕食 https://bit.ly/3rNA9gn

我在container store買的飾品storage是原本就已經幫我組好的一個set
從order history看 是叫Stackers Classic Jewelry Box Starter Set Taupe Set of 3
不過他們網站上面看好像沒有直接幫你組好的選項 都是需要自己組的
所以我就貼一個連結給你們就好 你們可以自己看看想要怎麼組自己的jewelry box！https://bit.ly/3C6JFQK

第一天穿的睡衣：
內外的～https://bit.ly/2XXGqvU
他們家我都穿最小號 輸入Amanda有八折

鍵盤跟滑鼠都是logi的 我在amazon購買
https://bit.ly/3lkw1T6
https://bit.ly/3nvCTQ7

單車褲有兩件
一件是Venque一件是Aritzia
Venque的輸入itsAmanda有85折
https://bit.ly/3z6ugO6
Aritzia：https://bit.ly/2XgA4YE
兩件材質不一樣 Aritzia是棉的 Venque的是一種滑滑的很舒服的材質😂
總之兩件我都很愛～你們可以自己評估！

除此之外應該沒有其它想知道的東西了吧？？打這一大堆我真的快累死哈哈哈
有想要知道的東西再留言告訴我～能找到連結我就都會附上ㄉ！
大家下支影片見 881！

🎵
Music by Juju B. Goode - Day 6. Park Place - https://thmatc.co/?l=FBEACF33
Soothe - Wil Pearce
Music by Naomi - Osaka - https://thmatc.co/?l=8139C299
Snow begins to fall - Coldbrew
Music by Mr. Thibs - Far Away - https://thmatc.co/?l=DCA13605
Locket - Canyon City
I’m moving to NY - Wei
By the fire - Coldbrew
Paris - Canyon City
You - Welsey Jensen & The Penny Arcade
Rulebreaker - Jason Dering
Blooming Again (with Paul Moody & Calica)
Gatinha - Cornello
Puzzle Peace - SAILR
No other - Johnny Knox

*FTC: Part of this video is sponsored by Fedoma, and some of the links above are affiliated.
這支影片的其中一部分由Fedoma贊助🤍
上面提供的有些連結 我會得到返利 所以如果介意的話可以新開一個頁面自己搜尋🥰

🔎Follow me on Instagram: itsamandalo
https://www.instagram.com/itsamandalo/
📩Contact me: piano860623@gmail.com

瀬戸、うなぎの名店へ！愛知県瀬戸市『うなぎの田代』に伺ってきました。100年以上前から伝わる職人技とタレを受け継ぐ現在の店主伊藤さんは4代目だそう。予約のハードルの高さは半端ないくらいですが、そんなハードルも感じさせない店主の見事な職人技、ど迫力のうなぎ、そして味わってみないとわからない魅力があります。前回伺った時の味と感動が忘れられず、今回も楽しみに訪問してきました。それでは早速ご覧ください！
＊感染対策を徹底して撮影を行っています。
＊撮影に際しては、お店の方や周りのお客様に充分配慮して撮影をおこなっています。
To Seto, a famous eel restaurant! I visited "Unagi Tashiro" in Seto City, Aichi Prefecture. The current owner, Mr. Ito, who inherits the craftsmanship and sauce that has been passed down for over 100 years, is said to be the 4th generation. The height of the reservation hurdle is not odd, but the shop owner's wonderful craftsmanship that does not make you feel such a hurdle, the powerful eel, and the charm that you can not understand until you taste it. I can't forget the taste and excitement I visited last time, so I'm looking forward to visiting this time as well. Please have a look!
* We take thorough measures against infection.
* When shooting, we take the shop and the customers around us into consideration.

いつもありがとうございます！( ´ ▽ ` )
高評価＆チャンネル登録もよろしくお願いいたします！

#うなぎ #鰻 #田代 #ロイドごはん #ミシュラン

🍀「ロイドごはん」公式LINEができました！
お友だち追加はこちら
https://lin.ee/ow4OdaV


—————《ロイド のサブチャンネル》—————————————

【フラメンコロイド のサブチャンネルもよろしくお願いします！】

メロンシートジャーニー
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNlBAUziFWkJZFY_u3t65A

フラメンコロイド
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsFJHNg3SR41R2a3vctUInw


—————《本日の店舗情報》—————————————————

『田代』
https://tabelog.com/aichi/A2303/A230302/23003045/


—————《オススメ動画！ ROIDGOHANs’ Recommended video》———————————


うなぎ蒲焼き。100年前から伝わる作り方。昔ながらの職人の早捌き【飯テロ】うなぎ田代の鰻丼 串打ち/愛知県瀬戸市 Japanese Street Food Grilled/Eel Master
https://youtu.be/fEalo8MREfs

デカ盛り鰻丼【うなぎ田代】食べログ百名店の野性味溢れるうな丼を一気食い！【飯テロ】japanesefood
https://youtu.be/by61V2Vtd4o

78才おじいちゃん屋台ラーメンの朝『幸っちゃん』夜明けの銀座【飯テロ】Old Style Ramen Stall Yatai Japanese Street Food
https://youtu.be/YHiWYvhxUI4

神回【ラーメン二郎の貴重映像】全増しが出来るまで一部始終を大公開！【ラーメン二郎 ひばりヶ丘店】ramen
https://youtu.be/mBFcdMHyaxA


—————《twitter》—————————————————————

★ロイドごはん
https://twitter.com/roidgohan
★メロンシート
https://twitter.com/meloncito310
★フラメンコロイド
https://twitter.com/flamenkoroid

—————《instagram》———————————————————-

★ロイドごはん
https://www.instagram.com/roidgohan
★メロンシート
https://www.instagram.com/satoshimelo...
★フラメンコロイド
https://www.instagram.com/flamenkoroid

—————《各サイトの情報》—————————————————

★ロイドwalker《人生をドラマチックに彩る旅とグルメと温泉図鑑》
https://ramenjapan.net/
★メロンシート《フラメンコギターの世界一の旅》
https://pordiotama3.xsrv.jp
★フラメンコロイド 《フラメンコロイドの神話と伝説》
https://flamenkoroid.net