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

【 劉俊謙憑《二月廿九》力爭釜山電影節ACA視帝 】
_
由「刀演」羅嘉駿（Steve）執導兼監製的「2020年度港劇」《二月廿九》，首播至今轉眼已超過一年半，惟仍然傳來好消息！事關劇中飾演余家聰的劉俊謙，周五（24/9）突然收到韓國「釜山國際電影節」（Busan International Film Festival）大會通知，指已入圍旗下「亞洲內容大獎」（Asia Contents Awards，簡稱ACA）的最佳男主角最後六強，是繼去年10月入圍新加坡媒體發展局（Infocomm Media Developemnt Authority，簡稱IMDA）主辦的「亞洲學院創意獎」（Asian Academy Creative Awards）「最佳劇集」（Best Drama Series）的唯一港劇之後（https://bit.ly/3oFZ0AI） ，再度揚威海外，在創意和演技兩大範疇得到國際認同。
_
事實上，今次入圍爭奪視帝的最後六強不乏猛人，除了劉俊謙外，亦包括日劇《 #半澤直樹2 》的 #堺雅人 、韓劇《 #黑道律師文森佐 》的 #宋仲基 和《 #我是遺物整理師 》的 #李帝勳 ，另外還有大陸劇集《沉默的真相》的男主角 #白宇 ，以及印度劇集《薩雅吉·雷：大師短篇故事精選》（Ray）的Ali Fazal。而入圍最佳女主角的最後五強分別為日劇《 #今際之國的有栖 》的 #土屋太鳳 、韓劇《秘密森林2》的 #裴斗娜 、韓劇《Sweet Home》的 #李施昤 、大陸劇集《小捨得》的 #宋佳 ，以及印度劇集《愛情密語》（Ajeeb Daastaans）的Nushrratt Bharuccha。（提名名單：https://bit.ly/2XYkyB1）
_
劉俊謙指得知自己入圍力爭視帝，感到相當高興。「因為本身呢個獎佢個認受性好高啦，自己亦都未入圍過亞洲嘅獎項，而當中好多競選嘅男演員呢，亦都係我妹妹，或者係我妹妹身邊嘅Friend嘅一啲偶像，譬如堺雅人同宋仲基，所以令到我覺得更加之榮幸。」由於《二月廿九》的續集《940920》將在下周一（27/9）開拍，劉俊謙認為今次自己獲得提名的消息，能夠激勵劇組士氣，「我都好希望自己今次能夠被提名呢樣嘢，能夠令到我哋九月尾即將拍攝嘅《940920》打下一支強心針，大家可以用一個好振奮嘅士氣，去繼續為香港製作更加好睇嘅劇集。」不過由於疫情持續，劉俊謙直言無法親身飛往釜山出席頒獎禮，但經理人團隊一直與主辦單位有密切溝通，或者能夠透過視象直播參與，等待賽果揭曉。
_
至於近日為籌備《940920》開鏡而「忙到爆廠」的羅嘉駿，亦透過WhatsApp短訊回應劉俊謙入圍爭視帝的消息，Steve笑言完全沒有想過對方會能夠入圍爭獎，「我以為上年已經報名，點知ViuTV報咗今年，所以都Surprise嘅。可能我哋拍緊（《940920》）嗰陣時都會喺（拍攝）現場一齊望住，睇住佢喺個電腦Mon前面攞唔攞到呢個獎，希望有好消息啦，但係對手咁強勁，我覺得入到圍都已經好開心。」Steve向一直以來喜歡和支持《二月廿九》的觀眾再三表示謝意，並呼籲大家要繼續留意2022年2月28日首播的《940920》，「密切留意同期待我哋嘅新劇集！」
_
參考大會介紹，「亞洲內容大獎」於2019年首度設立，旨在表揚及鼓勵亞洲地區電視台及網絡串流平台製作的優質節目，今年已來到第三屆，頒獎禮將於10月7日舉行，屆時除了頒發視帝和視后之外，亦會頒發最佳創意獎（Best Creative）、最佳亞洲劇集（Best Asian TV Series）、最佳點播平台原創劇（Best OTT Original）、最佳亞洲動畫（Best Asian Animation）、最佳單元劇及網絡劇（Best Short-form/Web Drama）、技術成就獎（Technical Achievement Award）、跨領域創意獎（Creative Beyond Border）、最佳編劇、最佳新晉女演員獎及最佳新晉男演員獎。
_
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
【《二月廿九》及《940920》系列報道 】
《940920》取消台灣外景拍攝：
https://bit.ly/351QpR3
《940920》預告足本睇！
https://bit.ly/3vvyduS
《二月廿九》奪「亞洲學院創意獎」香港最佳劇集：
https://bit.ly/3oFZ0AI
《二月廿九》點解叫Leap Day？
http://bit.ly/2TYOKXO
演Fiona搶鏡 ── 李敏當初點入行？
http://bit.ly/2IWpbAC
劉俊謙怎樣演余家聰？：
http://bit.ly/2QmlGY7
大結局討論區：
http://bit.ly/2IO1HgI
《講畀大東廳之二月廿九．下》：
http://bit.ly/39UTLXd
《講畀大東廳之二月廿九．上》：
http://bit.ly/2Lh4ljv
播出前三天終於剪起大結局：
http://bit.ly/2W49QFY
點解要瞓身力撐《二月廿九》？：
http://bit.ly/2VZg1uD
第五集評論 ── 因為慘所以好睇？：
http://bit.ly/3cGnc0Y
神聖幾個學會成員簡介：
http://bit.ly/2wnGuHM
《二月廿九》兩分鐘導演版預告：
http://bit.ly/3bT2aM3
_
延伸閱讀 ──
電影《梅艷芳》陣容曝光劉俊謙演張國榮：https://bit.ly/3mgIOIs
_
📸 instagram.com/saladd （《二月廿九》劇照）
_
緊貼「游大東影視筆記」最新資訊：
▇ facebook專頁： 游大東【鴻鵠志－影視筆記】
▇ instagram： instagram.com/yautaitung
▇ MeWe專頁： mewe.com/p/yautaitung
▇ Telegram：https://t.me/yautaitung
▇ Medium：https://yautaitung.medium.com
_
（25092021）
_
#游大東 #游大東影視筆記 #940920 #二月廿九 #港劇 #羅嘉駿 #黃智揚 #劉俊謙 #蔡思韵 #吳海昕 劉俊謙 940920 做乜膠睇電視 港女講劇 港人講電視 潘小濤 The Culturist 文化者 浪遊旅人 快樂的 ViuTV 蔡思韵 Cecilia Choi

［微風正飄過輕搖長裙～～光陰帶走了癡迷時辰～～相相抱緊～～完全地接近］賣洗衣液都賣到蝕4000萬，咩玩法？新股嘅嘢。梗係上市好美好，兩三次業績就現型。

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
月頭訂最抵！2021比別人知得多。subscribe now（https://bityl.co/4Y0h）。Ivan Patreon，港美市場評點，專題號外，每日一圖，好文推介。每星期6篇，月費100，已經1800人訂！ 畀年費仲有85折，20/40年費VIP 送本人著作一本。
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

TLDR：呢篇保證全無重點，東拉西扯，十分符合我作風。

1. 照計講大陸公司最好。古語有云：America. They want someone to love, but they want someone to hate. They want it easy（＊），實情呢，你將佢代入英國（年年射失十二碼都有屌靶，吾友話齋，白人一樣插到九彩），中國，香港，都得。全世界都係TVB文化，呢個忠嘅，呢個奸嘅，而本人就最撚高貴最撚聖潔。

2. 雖然我一般唔玩呢啲，但，為咗拯救下收視，都要隨下俗。刁，杜琪峰都要拍《孤男寡女》啦，佐治古尼都要拍Ocean’s 唔知幾多啦，Beyond都要扮阿拉伯佬啦（而家就畀人話cultural appropriation了），你覺得我叻過黃家駒咩！

3. 話說呢，包裝都係好重要，股票都係。近年嘅有RobinHood打著紅旗反紅旗，根本啲股東全部係華爾街基金，但就扮到反華爾街。遠少少嘅，「上海和黃」（＊＊），復星國際，好嘢，諗到呢個包裝真係好嘢。之後仲有「地產界UBER」WeWork（即係，寫字樓劏房），「美版拼多多」WISH（輸到我趴街，好彩只係買少少），甚至「印度支付寶」Paytm（仲有印度劉德華），「東南亞騰訊」SEA等等。

4. 至於非金融嘅，好成功嘅例子，搵日再講，當然係科大將自己包裝為「三大」（當然係科大發明，唔通係港大？定浸大？）。史上最成功嘅，當然係奧地利，令大家以為莫扎特係奧地利人，而希特拉係德國人。第二成功嘅，就係「愛情傻戀啦啦啦」嘅肥妹李美林，變咗亞洲性感天后Coco Lee。

5. OK，介紹返，今日嘅主角，藍月亮。號稱，「中國P&G」，結果就變咗「中國A&F」，或者「中國P&K」。都話，中國嘅嘢，地大勿搏，繁華娼盛。可惜呃GL（費事hate speech）話「十萬萬同胞一人買一支洗頭水都發」嘅故事，玩咗百幾年（since鴉片戰爭），已經爛晒。

6. 我呢，就真係唔係好明，做乜解賣洗衣液洗手液都可以蝕錢，公司當然有解，但算吧啦。

7. 而我亦都認真唔係好明，做乜賣洗衣液洗手液都咁有季節性，真心想知。19年上半年27億生意2億利潤，下半年43億生意9億利潤。20年上半年24億生意3億利潤，下半年46億生意10億利潤。

8. Anyway，公司上市都未夠一年，股價就當然係哈哈哈。記得嗰時都有小友問，我都叫唔好買，好簡單，太貴。貴可以更貴，但個出錯空間細好多咯，咁你整啲咁嘅數，咪出事。況且，新股嘅嘢，向來都唔多可靠。
9. 正題都講完，繼續廢話時間。公司總部黃埔區（唔係上海黃浦，更唔係紅磡，但，其實紅磡黃埔係named after黃埔船塢，which is in turn named after廣洲黃埔！），細個返廣州都去過。不過最記得唔係黃埔軍校，而係……黃埔炒蛋（有人以為係黃布炒蛋，表錯情了）。記得就十分好味，但唔知係細個啲嘢好食啲丫，定只係見識少，定只係回憶嘅味道。

10. 呀仲有，標題嘅呢首，應該四十歲嘅無人不識，李克勤嘅《藍月亮》。很紅的說，好似當年佢做港姐表演嘉賓都係唱呢首（應該就係搞上咗盧淑儀嗰屆）。其實我原本仲有篇《酒紅色的心》講上市公司偷咗客啲紅酒。兩首歌有乜關係？安全地帶嘛。

11. 又，唔識日文，但我個人覺得《藍月亮》係廣東話版好過日文版的。填詞啲節契幾好。理論上，你填衞斯理《紅月亮》都得的，但就係《藍月亮》順口啲。（正如大家都一定聽我講過，《遙遠的她》就梗係要「血癌已帶走她」先浪漫，變成「肺癌」甚至「乳癌」就冇咁浪漫，當年我教書可以上堂同學生講呢啲，而家實畀投訴死）

12. 填詞嘅，係向雪懷。「向雪懷」當然係筆名，而「向雪懷」對「葉念琛」，正如「辛棄疾」對「霍去病」。講乜？「向雪懷」個初戀女友叫阿雪！話畀屋企人迫佢嫁咗去美國。於是就有呢個名！係咪好痴線呢。葉念琛都係咁上下故事。

13. 最後一講，關於「藍月亮」，唔知向雪懷只係貪意境同啱音，定都有知道「藍月亮」在英文係rare event咁解，黑天鵝嘅friend

14. 但成件事最痴線係，你估我由邊度知道呢樣嘢？係黑社會大佬訪問！（https://bityl.co/7x4c）。呀鬼添所講的！once in a blue moon，真係幾咁有文化！條友讀左個澳洲MBA添呀，側聞平時就睇下Economist 咁。你話讀書幾咁緊要！

（＊）”I, Tonya＂（冰之驕女），Margot Robbie嘛，好睇。The haters always say ‘Tonya, tell the truth.’ But there’s no such thing as truth, I mean, it’s bullshit! Everyone has their own truth & life just does whatever the fuck it wants.”。 不過套戲其中一個好有趣嘅位係，你去邊度搵個可以跳凌空轉體三周半嘅人出嚟演？奧運金牌運動員喎。女主角固然唔得，替身都搵唔到，史上都係得幾丁友做到，但全部唔肯演。最後，當然係電腦搞掂。

（＊＊）In case有人未聽過，我又回帶講一次。當年復星上市，我都有抽，仲有幾手，但係用條女嘅戶口抽。後來分咗手，就被收歸國有，應該對方諗住當係掟煲費咁。然後有一排我係不停咁睇住個股價的，心諗如果升咗幾百倍就同佢死過。幸好冇呢件事。固然由08低位到而家，復星都升咗10倍，但我唔係低位買嘛，係上市抽，冇乜升好多，咪當……掟煲費咯。

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
月頭訂最抵！2021比別人知得多。subscribe now（https://bityl.co/4Y0h）。Ivan Patreon，港美市場評點，專題號外，每日一圖，好文推介。每星期6篇，月費100，已經1800人訂！ 畀年費仲有85折，20/40年費VIP 送本人著作一本。
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

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”

"Change the World" is the first single from Waldo's latest album "Sounds of Freedom". From the peak of Jade Mountain to the coast of the Gili Islands and beyond, Waldo and Caleb had a great time shooting this video.

The perils of politics, shaky economics and cultural strife are ubiquitous across addictive social media platforms, leaving many people stressed and emotionally deflated. We just wanna change the world before it changes us. We want to live freely and happily, and inspire you to as well.

We hope this song brings you good vibes. If so, please share with a friend, like, or leave a comment. Any one of these actions are super beneficial in keeping us afloat. Much appreciated.

"Change the World"（改變世界）是阿龍發的“Sounds of Freedom"（自由之聲）專輯的第一首單曲。從玉山到印尼，這次的拍攝過程確實過得很開心！

這很重要因為如今的生活有時讓人很沮喪！無論是政治混亂、經濟不景氣、民族衝突等等，我們每天打開手機好像每分每秒都在看這些很負面的東西，有時候感覺到無路可退、無藥可救，令人很憂鬱。因此我們決定要活得更主動，在世界改變我們以前，我們必須改變這個世界！我們希望活得自由自在，追求夢想以及創造我們所想要的，也希望別人受到我們所散發的能量的影響，選擇活得更大！

若您喜歡這首歌，請把它分享給朋友聽、按讚、留言等等，這些都對我們的發展很有幫助！萬分感恩！

Purchase｜購買:
Bandcamp: https://dallaswaldo.bandcamp.com/album/sounds-of-freedom

Stream & Save to Your Playlist｜播放:
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/6JP5qq7dU7MJZ3adNiwsH3?si=ySN2xr15TUaQ9WxFAIt8Ww

KKBox: https://kkbox.fm/2p0tDv

Follow the Artists｜追蹤:
Dallas Waldo 阿龍
FB：https://www.facebook.com/dallaswaldo/
IG：dallaswaldo

Caleb Cooper 賈斯汀
FB：https://www.facebook.com/justincalebcooper/
IG：justin_caleb_cooper

Credits:
作詞：Dallas Waldo, Caleb Cooper
作曲：Dallas Waldo, Caleb Cooper, 小沛 （Qmix Studio)
Mastering: Albert Song
Video： Nebula Entertainment

Special Thanks:
Sam Perniskie / Kulchur Collective (Design, Filming)
Jen Itani (Filming)
Jerry Lee (Lyric Translation)

訂閱頻道收聽更多好聽的歌：
https://www.youtube.com/c/EHPMusicChannelII
Facebook臉書專頁：https://www.facebook.com/EHPMC/
IG：ehpmusicchannel
** 喜歡的朋友記得要分享出去喔~ 超級需要你們的支持!!! 也歡迎大家點歌!! **
- 歌詞在下面 -

Official MV：https://youtu.be/x0dNpGO1pCk

I'm so ready to get gone
我已經準備好要走了
I'm feeling like a powerful girl
我感覺像個神力女超人
So come with me, let's go
所以跟我來, 走吧!
Together we can take on the world
我們可以一起拿下整個世界
Cause, we're so beyond
因為我們是如此強大
Living like we're typical girls
就像普通女孩一樣相處著
So take my hand and join me
所以拉著我的手, 跟我一起吧
Singing hey! hey! hey! okay!
唱吧! 嘿! 嘿! 嘿!
The world is ours
這世界是我們的
Moshi moshi
你好 你好
Hi, hello
嗨, 哈囉!
Did you call to talk to me?
你可以打電話給我嗎?
Hajime konnichiwa
你好 你好
I like you and you like me
我喜歡你而且你也喜歡我
It's time to say hello to a new day
該是時候向新的一天說哈囉
And have a cup of tea with my very best friend
而且和我的好朋友喝一杯茶

Whoa, oh, oh, oh
哇, 噢, 噢, 噢

Are you ready to get lost?
準備好了嗎?
Let's climb up to the highest peaks
來爬上最高的山峰
And climb higher above the clouds
爬的比那些雲還高
You and I can do anything
你和我能做任何事
'Cause, we're so far gone
因為我們在一起這麼久了
Living like the typical girls
就像普通女孩一樣相處著
So take my hand and join me
所以拉著我的手, 跟我一起吧
Singing hey! hey! hey! okay!
唱吧! 嘿! 嘿! 嘿!
The world is ours
這世界是我們的啊
Moshi Moshi
你好 你好
Hi, hello
嗨, 哈囉!
Did you call to talk to me?
你可以打電話跟我聊天嗎?
Hajime Konnichiwa
你好 你好
I like you and you like me
我喜歡你而且你也喜歡我
It's time to say hello to a new day
該是時候向新的一天說哈囉
And have a cup of tea with my very best friend
而且和我的好朋友喝一杯茶

Very best friend, my very best friend
好朋友啊, 我最好的朋友
Very best friend, my very-
好朋友, 我最好的...
My very best friend
我最好的朋友
Very best friend, my very best friend
好朋友啊, 我最好的朋友
Very best friend, my very best friend
好朋友啊, 我最好的朋友
'Cause we're so far gone
因為我們在一起這麼久了
Living like the typical girls
就像普通女孩一樣相處著
So take my hand and join me
所以拉著我的手, 跟我一起吧
Singing hey! hey! hey! okay!
唱吧! 嘿! 嘿! 嘿!
The world is ours
這世界是我們的啊
Moshi Moshi
你好 你好
Hi, hello
嗨, 哈囉
Did you call to talk to me?
你可以打電話跟我聊天嗎?
Hajime Konnichiwa
你好 你好
I like you and you like me
我喜歡你而且你也喜歡我
It's time to say hello to a new day
該是時候向新的一天說哈囉
And have a cup of tea with my very best
而且和我的好朋友喝一杯茶
Have a cup of tea with my very best-
和我最好的... 喝一杯茶
Very best friend, my very best-Whoa, oh, oh, oh
最好的朋友, 我最好的... 哇, 噢, 噢, 噢

Very best friend, my very best friend
最好的朋友, 我最好的朋友
Very best friend, my very-My very best friend
最好的朋友, 我最好最好的朋友
Very best friend, my very best friend
最好的朋友, 我最好的朋友
Very best friend, my very-My very best friend
最好的朋友, 我最好最好的朋友
Very best friend, my very best friend
最好的朋友, 我最好的朋友
Very best friend, my very -My very, very best friend
最好的朋友, 我最好最好最好的朋友
Very best friend (Moshi moshi, very best friend)
最好的朋友 (你好啊, 你好, 最好的朋友)
Very best friend, my very best friend
最好的朋友, 我最好的朋友
My very best
我最好的



合作郵箱：ehpmusicchannel@gmail.com

※歌曲跟影片版權為歌手本人及其音樂公司所有，若喜歡他們的音樂請支持正版，如版權方認為影片有侵權一事，請與我們聯絡，我們將徹底刪除影片。

Like, Comment, Share & Subscribe!
喜歡的請分享及訂閱本頻道!!

► Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NatayiK
► Instagram: NatayiK
► Snapchat: natayi
► Weibo: http://t.cn/Rt7o3Kw
► Inquiries: natayi@gmail.com

材料 Materials:
Lindor/球狀朱古力 Lindor Chocolate
不同顏色的朱古力Coloured Chocolate
棍子 Sticks
小蛋糕紙杯 Small Cupcake Baking Cups
膠帶和鐵線 Plastic Bags and Wires
絲帶 Ribbons
包裝紙 Paper Wrap
裝飾用糖果 Sprinkles
花花 Flowers


【影片簡介】
聖誕節 • 超簡單朱古力棒棒糖

又到了一年一度的聖誕節啦~
每次快到聖誕節都很興奮!!
因為可以放假 ((誤
就是覺得很喜歡聖誕節的氣氛
街上播的聖誕歌啊
掛著的聖誕燈飾啊
一切一切我都好喜歡~~

這次是我朋友要做朱古力
送給她遠距離戀愛來探訪她的男朋友
問我要不要一起做朱古力我就說好呀~
我們就一起做了這個聖誕節的朱古力

其實這個朱古力也是我第一次做
這個聖誕節朱古力棒棒糖看著簡單
卻超乎了我的想像
我發現原來要花好多心力和時間啊
我們兩個早上起來做到下午太陽快要下山
一共花了5, 6個小時?

所以收到了聖誕禮物的各位
記得用心去感受別人花了心思的聖誕禮物
無論是在花時間選禮物還是在花時間手作的禮物

希望做了這些朱古力棒棒糖的人
或者收到禮物的人
能過一個幸福的聖誕節♥️

【About this Video】
DIY Christmas Chocolate Lollypop

The best time of the year - Christmas is coming~
I’m always so hyped about Christmas hahahbecause it’s my break ((heheI always loved christmas’ atmosphere
The christmas songs on the street
The christmas decorations..I love them all!!
My friend wanted to make some chocolate lollypops for her boyfriendAnd asked me if I wanted to make some chocolate lollypop with herSo I said yes and here comes this video of us making the christmas chocolate!

It’s actually my first time making this chocolate lollypop
It looks like it’s very easy to makeBut it was way beyond my imagination

Making this chocolate lollypop spent more time that I thought we would
We spent almost 5-6 hours in total

So for people who got christmas presents from others
Remember to appreciate it!
No matter if its handmade or not
I hope people who have made/received this chocolate lollypop
Could have a MERRY CHRISTMAS ♥️


【Related Video】
安啾咪 - 精靈寶可夢Pokémon - 手作巧克力寶貝球過程大公開 ☆ 台灣什麼時候才能GO！
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlaZIHr0DVk

噪咖EBCbuzz - 聖誕派對首選！雪人巧克力
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgZbDxSC41g

靠杯星球 Fun Planet - 開箱｜男友手作巧克力布朗尼餅乾♡七夕限定
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCzlNNagoR8




Background Music：http://dova-s.jp/
Sound Effects：http://musicisvfr.com/free/index.htm