Question 1

c++ read line三寶媽艾莉絲的生活紀錄 在Facebook 的評價

Accepted Answer

{關於我們目前學習的電子書,線上分享}關於我們一開始聽說的訓練,當然最基礎的迪士尼是主攻, 接著是音檔的延續.#音檔如何聽  聽什麼?(一) 我有一隻專聽音檔手機連結藍芽喇叭聽, 並下載喜馬拉雅app (蘋果手機) 每天都在找他們可以聽的音檔,並把他加入訂閱, 隨時都可以打開手機聽聽音檔時間: 洗澡,遊戲,寫功課,通車時間.(二)投其所好---先找孩子有興趣的主題, 一開始不要太難聽不懂, 入手有佩佩豬,Ladybird Read it, Ben and Holly, Fly guy ....The cat in the hat 廖彩杏系列, 很多很多如果不知道要聽什麼.那就先找看過的卡通音檔聽,孩子已經先看過卡通 在聽音檔自然就知道再說什麼 內容更熟悉,(不盲聽, 要聽懂內容)但剛接觸英文的孩子 可以先從歌謠開始.#孩子反應聽不懂怎麼辦?這也是一開始我家老大的問題, 只要開英文他就說聽不懂關掉. 到現在可以用1.5倍速度聽 哈利波特 跟所有音檔.剛開始接觸我們從廖彩杏開始, 廖彩杏音檔:  廖彩杏绘本全集/附绘本/中英文”一起听吧http://xima.tv/2kVJMk?_sonic=0有搭配故事讀本, 每周我們聽3-5本 每天音檔時間為3-5小時不等,零碎時間 除了準備考試或看英文卡通外, 全部都是音檔時間. 直到睡覺前!不喜歡廖彩杏的孩子 可以從Ladybird“Ladybird Read it Yourself”一起听吧http://xima.tv/93fU061?_sonic=0我給他聽 老大一開始也不要 說聽不懂,那怎麼辦 就用獎勵方式吧!聽完這個音檔或一個什麼故事15-20分鐘 我們就可以看卡通 5分鐘 (英文卡通)一開始他也是不接受,但是英文卡通我讓她自己選,他選樂高卡通或其他她想要的 隨便他都可以 我只接受他聽英文發音+英文文字. 慢慢度過陣痛期!而且這件事是每天堅持一定要. 英文卡通也是每天看20分鐘 到現在都是,英文卡通是吸收英文字最重要的方式之一~(三) 線上電子書 RAZ分級閱讀 非常推薦 線上電子書一年大約300元#可問 https://www.facebook.com/Eden%E4%B9%8BRaz-Kids%E8%8B%B1%E6%96%87%E9%96%B1%E8%AE%80%E6%8E%A8%E5%BB%A3-1611891509046566二哥每天大約1-2本 目前到N階, 聽讀完沒有測驗,有時間才會測.  內容包羅萬象,偏知識類居多,也有賣紙本,有朋友以RAZ當成主教材 以主教材延伸念其他繪本或是其他跟主教材有關的書籍~(四)MYon電子書有可以測驗AR 程度 推送程度的書籍給你閱讀, 每日都有兒童新聞可以看, 看完還可以測驗, 也有漫畫可以看,每本都有超棒音檔+讀後測驗. 每篇皆有說明L值~  目前我們都是中午吃飯看完15分鐘卡通後 大哥二哥各一篇新聞+測驗, 測驗有對一題就可以換取1分鐘 youtube時間.通常他們都看電玩#團主line  https://lin.ee/3jNWBIr(五)AR 測驗系統每天我們讀完書都會測驗,建議大家可以測橋梁書以上再買, 想要每本測也要看孩子個性,像哥哥就比較喜歡看 不測驗 所以我會鼓勵他 如果有測驗可換得3分鐘電動時間, 二哥則是2分鐘電玩時間,小弟目前也是2分鐘電玩時間#團主line  https://lin.ee/3jNWBIr(六)Brainpop 線上影片+超完整系統使用加入這個不得了, 家裡男孩們超愛,每天1人一篇影片,內容皆是美國孩子課外補充教材之一 , 科學醫學人文地理歷史全都有, 重點是全部內容都是非常優質大家可以先去youtube上面找https://www.youtube.com/c/brainpop/videos買正式帳號有什麼好處呢?1.使用電腦可以用全功能: 單字表 遊戲 學習單 心智圖操作 笑話 延伸文章 讀後測驗 練習寫作 文法 通通都幫你找好了!~2.當作教材延伸的補充資料科普影片一看就懂. 勝過看一堆文字~3.我們的獎勵 看完一篇+測驗+心智圖+retell 可以得到五分鐘電玩時間#團主line  https://lin.ee/3jNWBIr(七)口說如何進步1.在家兄弟互相講英文我跟他們說 每天講10分鐘 周一至周六每天都有講, ˋ周日可以到外公外婆家玩Switch 一人15分鐘 .這個誘惑挺大的 因為平常沒有也不能玩, 到外公外婆家 有吃有玩還可以耍廢休息一下 當然他們就答應我.2.哥哥小弟喜歡咬手指 我看到一次說要扣電動時間3分鐘, 但是可以用說英文三分鐘折抵, 所以也答應我 目前大哥已經戒掉咬手指習慣.3.玩遊戲時間全程講英文如果沒有講英文 就不能玩如果講英文我會給他們多玩1-3分鐘我會看狀況調整,不過現在都只有用他們賺的時間 就沒再多給,因為玩電動講英文已經被制約了 所以就不用特別規定.4.家裡沒有練習對象 那就找找線上的英文吧!哥哥之前是菲師先訓練3-4個月 才轉tutorjr 到現在小弟加入Camblykids.（覺得全部歐師很棒啊！）5.Camblykids  給小孩的, 其實蠻棒的 我趁優惠五折購買一年. 上面全部都可教小孩的外師, 也有用系統提供的教材,非常方便! 價格優惠，只不過缺點要自己約課找適合老師 其他真的都是一級棒!~6.哥哥目前用Tutorjr 與即將7/12開課的西雅圖 期待他暑假的進步7.二哥目前參加Katon 線上 加拿大的教材與ABC老師，但目前還在第三堂課 等之後再跟大家分享吧!最後每天玩電動時間是10分鐘周末時間是20分鐘 最多30分鐘多的時間就先存起來。這些小小的方法是小振媽咪教我的，真的很感謝他無私的分享育兒經驗，尤其對付我家的男孩們每天都有不同的挑戰呀，有時間我在分享一篇如何讓他們在一天內分配做不同的事情經驗分享.￼遊戲的￼時間 全都是努力賺取換來了 哈從一開始的約定走到今天也花費很多時間與孩子進行討論.目前下周的調整是英文25分鐘念媽媽指定的英文25分鐘念自己想要的獲得電動5分鐘想想也划算阿~最重要我們三個都在迪士尼打下基礎，也已經畢業啦，好的顧問真的很重要，需要的話再私訊我唷！#迪士尼#線上資源#口說訓練以上分享給大家囉

Question 2

c++ read linenotebookspec 在Facebook 的評價

Accepted Answer

จัดหนักมาให้ชาว NBS ในช่วงนี้สำหรับพีซีแรงๆ เพื่อคอเกม ครั้งนี้เป็นคิวของประกอบคอมเล่นเกมสายโหดจาก Gigabyte AORUS ที่จัดทัพของแรง มาเป็นเซ็ตให้สัมผัส ไม่ว่าจะเป็นซีพียู Intel Core i9-11900K และกราฟิกการ์ด Gigabyte RTX 3070 Ti Gaming OC 8G กับการเล่นเกมระดับ 4K รวมถึงเหล่านักสร้างคอนเทนต์ Content Creator แคสเกม สตรีมเมอร์ และยูทูปเบอร์ แบบเครื่องเดียวจบ เล่นเกม บันเทิง ทำงานครบ ด้วยซีพียูตัวท็อป และเหล่าฮาร์ดแวร์ระดับแนวหน้าจาก AORUS เป็นอีกเซ็ตที่เล่นแล้วไม่อยากวางเมาส์เลยทีเดียว

อุปกรณ์ที่นำมาประกอบคอม
Intel Core i9-11900K
Gigabyte Z590 AORUS MASTER
Gigabyte RTX 3070 Ti Gaming OC 8G
AORUS RGB DDR4 3200
AORUS SSD 1TB M.2 PCIe 4.0
AORUS P850W 80+ Gold
AORUS AC300
AORUS WaterForce X240

Intel Core i9-11900K
ถ้าจะว่ากันที่ซีพียูตัวท็อปๆ บนแพลตฟอร์มพีซี Intel Core i9-11900K รุ่นนี้ ก็ดูจะตอบโจทย์คอเกม และคนทำงานได้ดี ไม่เป็นรองใคร กับโปรแกรมที่ต้องใช้ Core/ Thread เยอะๆ ในปัจจุบัน ไม่ว่าจะเป็น Adobe Premier หรือ Lightroom และงานด้านกราฟิกวีดีโออื่นๆ ก็ตาม กับการทำงานแบบ 8 core/ 16 thread ความเร็วสูงสุด 5.3GHz พร้อมกับการเป็น "K series" #Overclock

AORUS WaterForce X240
ชุดน้ำปิด AIO แบบ 2 ตอน ที่ให้ทั้งความเย็นสำหรับซีพียู และความสวยงาม เรียกว่าคนที่อยากได้ของประดับเคส ที่ระบายความร้อนไปในตัว ไม่น่าพลาด จุดเด่นอยู่ที่ปั้มน้ำ ที่มาพร้อมกราฟิกและแสงไฟ รายงานสถานะของระบบได้อีกด้วย รองรับการปรับแต่ง RGB FUSION 2.0 โดยรองรับซีพียูได้ทั้ง Intel และ AMD ในเกือบทุกซ็อกเก็ต

Gigabyte Z590 AORUS MASTER
เมนบอร์ดเกมมิ่งในเซ็ตนี้เป็น Z590 AORUS MASTER จัดเป็นเมนบอร์ดในซีรีส์โปร ดังนั้นจะเห็นได้ว่า มีการวางฟังก์ชั่นมาให้แบบครบครัน ไม่ว่าจะเป็นเรื่องของ ภาคจ่ายไฟขนาดใหญ่ 18+1 Phase เพื่อใช้ร่วมกับซีพียูตัวท็อปๆ ที่เป็น Intel Gen 10 และ Gen 11 ได้เต็มที่ เหมือนกับซีพียู Core i9 ในวันนี้ และเพื่อเพิ่มประสิทธิภาพในการโอเวอร์คล็อกได้ดีขึ้น

รองรับแรม DDR4 ได้สูงสุดถึง 5400MHz กับความจุ 128GB สำหรับ 4 สล็อตนี้ และยังใส่ Armor มาในทุกสล็อต ส่วนที่ชอบฟีเจอร์นี้ เพราะไม่ต้องกังวลเรื่องถอดใส่แรมบ่อยๆ สล็อตดูแข็งแรงขึ้น

Gigabyte RTX 3070 Ti Gaming OC 8G
นับว่าจัดจ้านในย่านนี้ และถือเป็นซีรีส์ใหม่ ที่ออกมาตอบโจทย์คอเกมได้ในช่วงที่การ์ดจอเล่นเกมขาดแคลนเช่นนี้ กับขุมพลัง GeForce RTX 3070 Ti ที่ใส่สเปคมาไม่ธรรมดา นอกเหนือจากชุดระบายความร้อนขนาดใหญ่ แบบ 3 พัดลม กับฮีตซิงก์แบบ 3 สล็อต พร้อมแสงไฟ RGB ปรับแต่งได้ ผ่านทาง RGB Fusion 2.0 ได้อีกด้วย
#RTX3070Ti #AORUS

AORUS RGB DDR4 3200
สำหรับแรมรุ่นนี้ AORUS RGB หลายคนน่าจะคุ้นตากันดีอยู่แล้ว ซึ่งในครั้งนี้เราจัดชุด Kit 16GB DDR4 3200 (8GB x2) ค่า CL 16-18-18-38 เปิด XMP 3200MHz ใช้งานได้ทันที จากข้อมูลเป็น Samsung B-Die น่าจะไปต่อได้อีก มาพร้อมแรม Dummy เพื่อให้เต็มสล็อตทั้ง 4 แถว และแสงไฟ RGB ที่ดูสวยงาม ปรับแต่งได้ด้วย RGB Fusion เช่นกัน โดยเมนบอร์ดสามารถอัพเกรดได้ถึง 128GB พร้อมอัพเกรดได้เสมอ

AORUS SSD 1TB M.2 PCIe 4.0
SSD ในแบบ M.2 NVMe PCIe Gen4 x4 ความเร็วสูง แม้จะไม่ได้มาพร้อมไฟวิบวับ แต่ก็จัดซิงก์อะลูมิเนียมเท่ๆ ช่วยระบายความร้อนมาเต็มสูบ เช่นเดียวกับความเร็ว ในการอ่านเขียนข้อมูล ในระดับ 5,000MB/s (Read) และ 4,400MB/s (Write) โดยใช้ 3D TLC NAND เพื่อให้อัตราทรูพุตในการจัดการข้อมูลที่เร็วขึ้น ด้วยความจุ 1TB นี้ ก็เพียงพอต่อการใช้งาน และการเล่นเกมได้อย่างพอเหมาะเลยทีเดียว 3-4 เกมระดับ AAA เอาอยู่ โดยค่า MTBF หรือ Mean time between failure อยู่ที่ 1.7 ล้านชั่วโมง และการรับประกัน 5 ปี #SSD1TB

AORUS P850W 80+ Gold
จัดสเปคมาอย่างแรง จะไม่เตรียมเพาเวอร์ซัพพลายดีๆ ก็ดูจะแปลกๆ วันนี้เลยมี AORUS P850W เรียกว่าเป็นอีกหนึ่งซีรีส์ที่จับต้องได้ และฟีเจอร์เหมาะกับเหล่าเกมเมอร์และโอเวอร์คล็อก กับการเป็นเพาเวอร์ระดับ 850W ในแบบ Full-modular ที่ถอดสายได้ทั้งหมด พัดลมขนาด 135mm ในแบบ 2 Ball-Bearing เลือกใส่เฉพาะที่ต้องการได้ตามสะดวก ที่สำคัญยังใช้ 100% Japanese Capacitors ที่มีความทนทาน จ่ายไฟ +12V ในแบบ Single Rail ให้ซีพียูและการ์ดจอรุ่นใหญ่ๆ ได้เต็มที่ 70.5A 846W ที่สำคัญคือ ได้การันตี 80+ Gold เพื่อการจ่ายไฟอย่างมีประสิทธิภาพอีกด้วย พร้อมการรับประกัน 10 ปี
#จัดสเปคคอม #คอมเล่นเกม

#NBS #NotebookSPEC

--------------------------------------

อ่านรีวิวเต็ม & ดูสเปคและราคา
→ https://notebookspec.com

ค้นหาโน้ตบุ๊คเล่นเกม
→ http://bit.ly/NBGaming

ค้นหาโน้ตบุ๊ครุ่นล่าสุด
→ http://bit.ly/NBSearch

จัดสเปคพีซี สเปคคอมเล่นเกม
→ http://bit.ly/NBSspecpc

--------------------------------------

► ติดตามเราได้ที่ ◄
Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/c/notebookspec
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/notebookspec
Twitter : https://twitter.com/notebookspec
Line: @NotebookSPEC

ติดต่อโฆษณา/รีวิว : [email protected]

Question 3

c++ read line江魔的魔界（Kong Keen Yung 江健勇） 在Facebook 的評價

Accepted Answer

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”

關於 c++ read line ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

「c++ read line」的推薦目錄：

c++ read line 在 三寶媽艾莉絲的生活紀錄 Facebook 的最讚貼文

About author

c++ read line 在 notebookspec Facebook 的最佳解答

About author

c++ read line 在 江魔的魔界（Kong Keen Yung 江健勇） Facebook 的精選貼文

About author

c++ read line 在 7Car News小七車觀點 新聞頻道 Youtube 的最讚貼文

About author

c++ read line 在 7Car小七車觀點 Youtube 的最佳貼文

About author

c++ read line 在 7Car小七車觀點 Youtube 的精選貼文

About author

你可能也想看看

搜尋相關連結

c++ read line 在三寶媽艾莉絲的生活紀錄 Facebook 的最讚貼文

c++ read line 在江魔的魔界（Kong Keen Yung 江健勇） Facebook 的精選貼文

c++ read line 在 7Car News小七車觀點新聞頻道 Youtube 的最讚貼文