關於 30 under 30 2022 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Mini Tattoo紋身課程-2021/2022現正招生

成為紋身師向來都不是一件容易的事，需要花上數千小時的練習，如能夠在重壓力中保持初心，銘記紋身創作為您帶來的快樂，生命力與價值，相信達成夢想的日子亦不遠。

Keep your dreams alive. Understand to achieve anything requires faith and belief in yourself, vision, hard work, determination, and dedication. Remember all things are possible for those who believe. – Gail Devers

若您有志加入紋身行業發展，願意為這理想而堅持不懈地努力學習，我們會在課程中挑選表現出色的學員，將有機會成為Mini Tattoo的紋身師。
每一名學員都需經過Mini Lau嚴格的甄選考試，希望大家在學習紋身的過程中可以找到自己獨特的風格，定位，成為獨當一面的紋身師。
報名資格：需擁有相關美術資歷和對美術有熱誠並現居於香港

報名: https://forms.gle/jEKTjDrGj9G7fwxX7
截止報名: 6月30日11:59pm前
經初步甄選後，會於7月上旬前通知面試及考試的日期，地點。

*只會錄取2位學生*

如有任何查詢請電郵至info@minitattoo.com

Mini Tattoo - tattoo course 2021/2022
Becoming a tattoo artist has never been an easy task. It takes thousands of hours of practice, if you are able to maintain your aspiration under heavy pressure, and remember the happiness, vitality and value that tattoo creation brings to you. We believe that you are not far away from your dream.

Keep your dreams alive. Understand to achieve anything requires faith and belief in yourself, vision, hard work, determination, and dedication. Remember all things are possible for those who believe. – Gail Devers

If you are interested in joining the tattoo industry and are willing to work hard for this goal, we will select students with outstanding performance and have the opportunity to become tattoo artist in Mini Tattoo.

Every student needs to complete the strict interview and examination in order to be selected by Mini Lau. We hope that everyone can find their own style and position in the process of learning tattoo and become a unique tattoo artist.

Requirements: applicants must have relevant art qualifications and enthusiasm for art and live in Hong Kong

Registration: https://forms.gle/jEKTjDrGj9G7fwxX7
Deadline for registration: Before 11:59pm, June 30

After the preliminary selection, the date and location of the interview and examination will be notified before mid-July.

For any enquiries, please email to info@minitattoo.com

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”

全球減碳淨零排放風潮再添一名大咖成員，網路串流影音服務巨擘美國 Netflix 宣布2022年淨零排放，研究分析發現其業務中原創影集碳足跡佔比最高.....（04/07/2021 EIC環境資訊中心）

Netflix宣布，要在2022年底達成淨零排放。

（環境資訊中心綜合外電；姜唯 編譯；林大利 審校）隨著各大科技公司宣布減碳目標，串流媒體巨頭Netflix近期宣布，要在2022年底達成淨零排放。Netflix的內部報告指出，去年碳足跡大多來自電影電視製作與企業營運。

Netflix碳足跡50％來自影視製作 40％來自公司營運
根據獨立報，Netflix上月30日發表「2020年社會環境治理（Environmental Social Governance, ESG）報告」，說明將如何「減少、保留和清除碳」，並投資自然相關工作。它的氣候目標包含直接排放（範疇一）、間接排放（範疇二）和其他間接排放（範疇三），一般而言，是足以說明企業對社會影響的領域。

報告指出，2020年Netflix的碳足跡為110萬噸，相當於一個擁有約15萬戶家庭的城市，但比2019年低，主因是武漢肺炎（COVID-19）大流行導致影片拍攝計畫延後。

Netflix表示，其碳足跡的50％來自電影和電視製作，40％來自企業營運，透過資料中心串流內容約佔5％。

Netflix上個季度營收為66億美元，全球擁有約2.04億用戶。與其他科技公司相比，Netflix在設定淨零目標方面進展算是緩慢。微軟一年前宣布2030年實現負碳排放的計畫。此後不久，Facebook承諾在10年內實現淨零排放，而蘋果承諾2030年整個供應鏈和產品實現100％碳中和。

「我們設定氣候目標的時程有一點晚，我們完全了解這一點。」去年10月上任的Netflix第一位永續長史都華（Emma Stewart）承認，「不過，自加入這家公司以來，我發現一但它決定要做什麼事，它會做得很好且很快。我在這裡的六個月間，Netflix取得的進展比幾年前我在其他機構還要多。」

Netflix減排策略：使用綠電、僱用當地員工、提供電動車充電站
全球前2000大上市公司中，有1/5已承諾淨零排放目標。但是環境人士對於設定在未來幾十年間要達成的目標抱持懷疑。

在不到兩年的時間內要實現淨零聽起來風險很高，但像Netflix這樣精打細算的公司不太可能沒有把握就做出承諾。

企業面臨的減碳挑戰各有不同，並非所有的碳足跡都一樣。像微軟自稱其2020年的碳排放量為1600萬噸。

Netflix表示，2030年前將透過安裝太陽能板和改用再生能源，將直接排放和間接排放減少45％。

Netflix也將影響它的長期辦公室租賃、運輸和建材供應商。該公司95％的辦公室和拍攝空間都是租來的，打算鼓勵業主裝設再生能源，並從公用事業中選擇綠電。

Netflix減排的其他策略包括僱用當地工作人員，避免出差和住宿，以及提供員工其他的通勤選擇。

在內容製作基地，他們打算在柴油發電機上安裝乾淨且安靜的行動電池組，並提供電動汽車免費的充電站和停車位。

打造「積極的連鎖反應」 Netflix將納入其他間接碳排
該公司表示，它將計入所有相關的其他間接排放，目的是在整個產業中產生「積極的連鎖反應」，包含所有Netflix內容的碳排放，涵蓋Netflix自己生產的內容、第三方內容，跟Netflix品牌的授權內容。

史都華說，雖然溫室氣體會計準則會將授權內容這些排放量（來自許可產品）歸為其他人，但「我們自願承擔責任」。

其他間接排放將包括與公司和生產購買的商品和服務、員工上下班以及商務旅行相關的排放。

Netflix使用亞馬遜網路服務（Amazon Web Services, AWS）和Equinix等雲端服務，並將其排放量納入了目標。

為了提高效率，Netflix免費提供類似大型硬碟系統的「Open Connect Appliances」給網路服務供應商。也就是說在倫敦的使用者要看Netflix，串流資料將來自英國附近的位置而非加州總部。

Netflix提供資金 助研發影視串流、廣告等碳排測量工具
其他間接排放中不包含訂閱戶透過手機、平板或電視看Netflix節目所產生的排放。

但是，Netflix與BBC、Sky和ITV等其他產業巨頭一起，為布里斯托大學開發DIMPACT線上工具提供部分資金。這個工具能用來測量影視串流、廣告和出版等其他網路服務的碳排放。

根據資料，Netflix估計2020年Netflix上每一小時串流的二氧化碳排放量將遠低於100克二氧化碳當量（所有溫室氣體的排放量，而不光是二氧化碳），相當於駕駛汽油車跑約400公尺。

此外，Netflix的報告還說，到年底前，「內部無法減少的任何排放都將透過資助高品質的氣候行動工作來解決」，例如保護高風險熱帶森林，幫助保留現有的碳儲藏。

參考資料：
獨立報（2021年4月1日），Netflix promises to wipe carbon footprint in under two years
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/netflix-net-zero-emissions-2022-b1824262.html

完整內容請見：
https://e-info.org.tw/node/230364

♡

#廣東話 #F1 #DanOnTheMove #Formula1 #Ferrari #LIVE #Football #粵語 #賽車 #足球 #直播

結論：早於四月已把「vast majority」資源用於 2022 研發的法拉利，其 SF21 看來只能在特定抓地賽道（例如：Barca）、特定較慢彎路（例如：Monaco 與 Baku 上路街道）與特定工作溫度窗口才可有表現 —— 即係你懂的 ?。喜歡的話，LIKE/SHARE/SUB 同㩒鐘仔⏰，多謝?。
=================================
Patreon@DanOnTheMove ??/??? US$16/30 獨家《唔是體育》拉闊系列短片

第三季
? 歐洲國家盃の願榮光歸烏克蘭??✊? https://www.patreon.com/posts/52598285
? 歐洲國家盃の香港 VS 北馬其頓????⁉️【公開】? https://youtu.be/MVgblfWSKmM

體育 VS 政治
? 毋忘六四李娜贏法網十週年：https://www.patreon.com/posts/52045860
? 我哋真係好撚鍾意曼聯：https://www.patreon.com/posts/51197714
? 歐超聯劇場の誰惡誰大誰正確：https://www.patreon.com/posts/50611073
? F1/FE「姐姐們你好?」：https://www.patreon.com/posts/50308140
? 華舒福 VS 兒童權利：https://www.patreon.com/posts/47655309
? 英超沙夏 VS 種族歧視：https://www.patreon.com/posts/49780905
? W Series VS 性別定型：https://www.patreon.com/posts/49130690
? 美國隊長 VS 性向歧視：https://www.patreon.com/posts/49440852
? 芬蘭奧運 VS 全球暖化：https://www.patreon.com/posts/48606768
? 1968奧運 VS 種族平權：https://www.patreon.com/posts/46769174
? POLO Golf VS 性向平權：https://www.patreon.com/posts/47656951

體育 VS 商業
? FB 足球直播 X 未來錢途【公開】：https://youtu.be/k9AVotoGZq8
? 曼城 VS 政治經濟學：https://www.patreon.com/posts/51786070
? F1 摩納哥 X 九遊遊：https://www.patreon.com/posts/51470055
? MMA 暴徒 VS 共匪：https://www.patreon.com/posts/50928196
? Extreme E X 動機行銷：https://www.patreon.com/posts/47067289
? 英超 X 網購車車：https://www.patreon.com/posts/47315338
? Under Armour X 體育行銷：https://www.patreon.com/posts/46471531
? 美國體育 X 博彩節目：https://www.patreon.com/posts/48814088
? F1 X 品牌塑造：https://www.patreon.com/posts/46161662
=================================

【観る・FF7 クライシスコア】FFⅦの7年前を描く前日譚・ザックスのストーリー。

6月10日に発売される『FINAL FANTASY Ⅶ REMAKE INTERGRADE（ファイナルファンタジーⅦ リメイク インターグレード）』を前に、FF7外伝のひとつにあたるクライシスコアをプレイしました。

動画編集でAIアップスケーリングを使用し、画質を向上させてみました。一部うまく反映出来ないところもありますがご了承ください。BGMやエンディングのテーマソングが著作権に引っかかるため、編集で曲を入れ替えしています。若干音声がなくなる部分がありますが、ご理解の程よろしくお願いいたします。なお、ゲーム操作部分は元より音声はありません。

＊古いゲームですが、各チャプターの詳しい攻略は別でアップします。

【FFⅦ クライシスコア】CRISIS CORE FFⅦ 攻略プレイリスト：
⇒https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4fd59i0eA3X-B0plVR0IFAgfkJG7XAui

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

『CRISIS CORE FFⅦ』について：
ファイナルファンタジーⅦの「 COMPILATION of FINAL FANTASY Ⅶ」と総称される外伝の一つで、ザックスを主人公としたスピンオフ作品。
2007年9月13日にスクウェア・エニックスより発売されたPSP専用のアクションRPG。
時間軸は「FF7」から7年前に巡る出来事を描いている。キャッチコピーは「男達は己の悲運より、友のために涙を流した。」
また、2022年にはCCFFⅦを含むコンピレーションシリーズの最新タイトル「FINAL FANTASY Ⅶ EVER CRISISがiOS/Android向けに配信されると発表されている。

ストーリー：
『ファイナルファンタジーVII』から遡ること7年前。
魔晄都市「ミッドガル」には強力な軍事力と影響力を持つ「神羅カンパニー」があった。
神羅には強力な戦闘能力を持つ兵士の組織「ソルジャー」がありその中にソルジャー・クラス2nd ザックスがいた。ザックスは先輩であるソルジャー・クラス1stのアンジールと英雄としてその名を世界にとどろかせていたセフィロスとともに「ソルジャー大量失踪事件」を調査する。

TIMELINE:
START 0:00
序章「夢を持て」 0:05
CHAPTER 1 - 「俺を裏切ったりはしない」 8:56
CHAPTER 2 - 「俺たちはモンスターじゃない」 25:52
CHAPTER 3 - 「天使の夢はひとつだけ」 44:28
CHAPTER 4 - 「みんな どこいっちまったんだよ」 1:09:32
CHAPTER 5 - 「ソルジャーの誇りは手放すな」 1:30:06
CHAPTER 6 - 「ジェネシスは本当に死んだのか」 1:50:52
CHAPTER 7 - 「俺は神羅を捨てるかもしれない」 2:04:31
CHAPTER 8 - 「わかった 会いにいく」 2:16:40
CHAPTER 9 - 「俺たちは英雄だ」 2:47:22
終章＆ENDING 3:20:37

サムネイル製作：K.K

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

【FF7 リメイク】FINAL FANTASY 7 REMAKE 攻略プレイリスト：
⇒https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4fd59i0eA3ULnlwzSMhc0DSVd9l9cWUA

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

- ゲームタイトル： CRISIS CORE -FINAL FANTASY VII-
- 発売日： 2007年9月13日
- 価格： 6,090円（PSP）
- ジャンル： アクションRPG
- CERO： B
- 開発： スクウェア・エニックス
- 発売： スクウェア・エニックス

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

#FF7CC #クライシスコア #CrisisCore

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

著作権者:
PlayStation Portable®版 クライシス コア ファイナルファンタジーVII
©2007 SQUARE ENIX CO.,LTD. All Rights Reserved.
CHARACTER DESIGN : TETSUYA NOMURA

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976,
allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise
be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance
in favor of fair use."

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

今日は月曜日！ここ１週間のニュースのまとめです。4/14に公式告知された4/21のイベントへ向けた追加の噂や予測とこの１週間活発だった次期iPhone 13や将来のiPhoneの噂など結構たくさん有りました。
4月19日午後3時くらいまでの情報です。その後別の情報が出る可能性はありますがそれは来週扱います。

＜引用させていただいた記事＞
MacRumors
https://www.macrumors.com/guide/what-to-expect-apple-event-april-20/

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/17/leaker-new-imacs-apple-spring-event/
https://twitter.com/L0vetodream/status/1383349327658057728

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/16/21-5-inch-mac-dwindling-availability/

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/16/ltpo-120hz-display-iphone-13-pro-models/
https://twitter.com/DSCCRoss/status/1383098367102709765

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/16/iphone-13-series-cad-leaks/
https://youtu.be/fim4z0B5xak

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/15/iphone-12-spring-case-colors-leak/

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/15/apple-pencil-3-again-rumored/
https://twitter.com/laobaiTD/status/1367102458124660745

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/15/gurman-apple-event-nothing-innovative/
https://youtu.be/e6lGR6xDmwk

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/14/kuo-no-new-iphone-mini-in-2022/
https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/14/kuo-2022-iphones-no-mini-upgraded-camera/
https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/14/kuo-2023-iphones-under-display-face-id/

9to5Mac
https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/16/apple-pencil-3-leaked-video-glossy/
https://twitter.com/ileakeer/status/1383034501325066240

https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/17/iphone-13-notch-images-vs-iphone-12/
https://twitter.com/duanrui1205/status/1383444354866372615

https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/14/parallels-16-5-with-native-apple-silicon-support-now-available-up-30-faster-vm-performance-than-intel/

https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/13/apple-april-event-ipad-confirmed/
https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/13/apple-april-event-roundup/
https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/13/apple-april-event-roundup/

＜関連動画＞
速報！Appleがイベント開催を正式告知！日本時間4月21日午前2時・出そうな新製品の予測まとめ
https://youtu.be/d1FTQ5XxV4E

先週の動画
ついに新iPad Proが4月下旬!?も出荷台数少なめ？iPhone絶好調など・Appleの1週間 噂とニュースまとめ　2021年4月12日
https://youtu.be/1l6301TobzQ


iPhoneケース新色？にiOS14.5はもうすぐ？SEは今年無し？WWDC決定などAppleの1週間 噂とニュースまとめ20210406
https://youtu.be/ku-xhL8gZqU

AirPods 3は7-9月？新型iPad Pro/iMacの痕跡に、AirTag詳細？Appleの1週間 噂とニュースまとめ・20210329
https://youtu.be/a3E_oPjPZeA

えー！Appleイベント＆新製品は4月説が浮上！iPad ProはThunderboltで4月から生産？AirPods 3は7から9月生産？などのまとめ・2021年3月18日
https://youtu.be/g86h_zVx5EA

先週のまとめ動画
AirPods 3が良さげ！3/23イベント？iPhone 13画面内Touch IDアリ？Appleの噂とニュース１週間まとめ　2021年3月15日
https://youtu.be/cB1AsDZ6IXo

3月にAppleシリコン新型「iMac 」出るのか？一部モデルが購入不可・M1？M1X？24インチ？
https://youtu.be/rFjYI2_XIBg

iPhone 13ノッチ縮小？画面内指紋認証の行方？ARコンタクトレンズ？Appleのニュースと噂1週間まとめ！2021年3月8日
https://youtu.be/2FFNudW4hvE

3月にAppleシリコン新型「iMac 」出るのか？一部モデルが購入不可・M1？M1X？24インチ？
https://youtu.be/rFjYI2_XIBg

MacBook Pro 14”16”は8月9月？SDスロット？iMacアルミ色物？Appleのニュースと噂１週間まとめ・2021年3月1日
https://youtu.be/hrWUh8Pyuug

iPhone 13は常時表示にポートレートビデオ？ここ1週間のAppleのニュースと噂・2021/2/15
https://youtu.be/PhlnoYJE7Us

「iPhone 12 miniがそれほど売れてないらしい」について考える・ちょっと寂しいけど分析
https://youtu.be/mr-001_SK3c

マスク装着時iPhoneをWatchでロック解除！などiPhone/Watchの嬉しいニュースと噂のまとめ 2021/2/03・iOS 14.5Betaや SE Plus/13など10日間
https://youtu.be/6uvvw1WrajY

心電図にiPad mini 6やiPhone画面内指紋認証！Appleの楽しみな噂続出！最近の噂とニュースまとめ・2021/1/22
https://youtu.be/iHCUJLq5zvI

Appleの忘れ物追跡タグ「AirTag」用とされるキーホルダーを入手し妄想満喫！エアタグの足音が聞こえる・いよいよ発売か？
https://youtu.be/CwmsFMrR0QI

2021年今年出そうなApple新製品！噂まとめ・iPad miniにAirTag、miniLED Macなど
https://youtu.be/aZS047foWcc

2020→2021 Appleへの期待・ハズレ製品もツッコミ所あるのも大歓迎！攻めた結果ならApple愛で受け止める
https://youtu.be/sAOtPbhTEEU

2020年Apple製品「買って良かった」ベスト10・1ユーザーとして気に入ったもの
https://youtu.be/p35BpxdT3J8

再生リスト：2021Appleの噂やニュース
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1bNs6yZxdxlWopvosovZ9AM6EEQOkjsw
再生リスト：気になるニュース
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1bNs6yZxdxnZBaYgoQqQgTHnaxGLsmGa
再生リスト：2020年Apple新製品
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1bNs6yZxdxm

撮影機材

・Panasonic Lumix GH5s
・Panasonic Lumix GH5
・Canon Power Shot G7X Mark II
・iPhone 12 Pro（Simフリー）
・iPhone 12 mini（Simフリー）
・iPadPro 11”（Simフリー）
・DJI OSMO Pocket
・Moment iPhone 外付けレンズ＆専用ケース

動画編集
Final Cut Pro X
Adobe Illustrator(スライド)
Adobe Photoshop(スライド）
Adobe Character Animator（アニメーション）
※チャンネル全般で使っているものであって動画によって機材アプリは違います。

#Appleイベント
#新型iPadPro
#新型iMac