Pray this for me. More open doors for the Gospel of Jesus Christ to reach those who need it the most, especially during this time! We need boldness to preach the Gospel because if we are afraid of man’s opinion, we won’t even speak or write anything we think may offend others. The truth offends when people are clinging on to wrong beliefs.
“For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? For if I were still pleasing men, I wouldn’t be a servant of Christ.” (Galatians 1:10 WEB)
A people pleaser cannot be an effective minister of the Gospel because he will mince words and hold his tongue when God actually wants him to speak.
Pray that this illusionary fear of man would fall off, and that I, and all of us, will allow the Holy Spirit to lead us without any hindrances.
There is no time to waste, and there are many souls that need to be won.
“Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work. Don’t you say, ‘There are yet four months until the harvest?’ Behold, I tell you, lift up your eyes, and look at the fields, that they are white for harvest already. He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit to eternal life; that both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together. For in this the saying is true, ‘One sows, and another reaps.’ I sent you to reap that for which you haven’t labored. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.”” (John 4:34-38 WEB)
The harvest fields represent the nations of the world. The wheat are the souls.
We are reaping souls easily today by preaching, thanks to the labor put in by the prophets, the apostles, the saints, and of course God, throughout the ages. Through the faithfulness of these predecessors, we have the complete Bible today, and the full revelation of the Gospel to share to the whole world.
Never forget that the Gospel we have access to today was fought for with much blood, sweat, and tears. People faced heavy persecution and even died for the truth.
Treasure the Gospel and never take the words of the Scriptures for granted!
Need help understanding the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John correctly through the lens of Grace? I know how intimidating reading the four gospels can be. When I was a new believer, some passages in there were just frightful and discouraging.
The reason was because I did not know how to rightly divide the Word based on the covenants. I thought everything in there was directed at me.
For example, Jesus said that if you eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, for it is better for you to enter Heaven without eyes than to have your entire being cast into the fire of Hell. Are we supposed to pluck our eyes out when we sin? Are we supposed to cut off our arms and legs like Jesus said? We need to understand the important reason why He said what He did. There is a purpose that you won’t understand if you have no context or background knowledge of the whole Bible.
If you are new to reading the four gospels for yourself, or you have some questions about difficult passages in there, I would like to recommend you read my four-ebook bundle called “Understand the Four Gospels Through the Lens of Grace”.
As you read it, many confusing pieces of Scripture will be unlocked to you, and things that used to scare you will be read in the right light. Get the bundle now to enjoy 20% off the usual price, and you can download and read it right away:
https://bit.ly/understandeveryparable
同時也有24部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過6萬的網紅Serrini,也在其Youtube影片中提到,這是一個lyric MV 比大家share。無任何特別,只係我地拍攝單曲封面時候嘅outtake vid。 ♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎ 《網絡安全隱患》單曲各大平台有得聽啦! 隨著前奏警號一響,「網絡安全隱患」Gwendol...
「granted access」的推薦目錄:
- 關於granted access 在 Milton Goh Blog and Sermon Notes Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於granted access 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於granted access 在 Milton Goh Blog and Sermon Notes Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於granted access 在 Serrini Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於granted access 在 lifeintaiwan Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於granted access 在 Aida Azlin Youtube 的精選貼文
granted access 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最佳貼文
這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。(加拿大法院鏈接在此:https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8)
這位法王的桃色事件,我是幾年前才聽到。但,藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞,我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過,也有一些活佛跟她表白。(這不只是她,其他地方我也聽過不少)
這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。
很多時候發生這種事情,信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇,或者說她們也精神病,或者說她們撒謊。
我不排除有這種可能性,但,多過一位,甚至多位出來指證的時候,我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。
大寶法王的桃色事件,最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒,第二位是香港的女出家人,現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。
對大寶法王信徒來說,這一次的比較麻煩,因為是有孩子的。(關於有孩子的,我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時,就有聽聞)
如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA,這對法王和他的信徒來說,會很尷尬和矛盾,因為做或不做,都死。
你若問我,我覺得『人數是有力量的』,同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來,是不出奇的。
我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒,如果你們真的愛佛教,先別說批判,但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議,你是間接害了佛教。
(下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容,當中有很多細節。)
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
F. Delay / Prejudice
CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).
[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.
[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.
[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.
[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.
BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.
[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.
[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.
[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.
[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.
[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.
[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.
[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.
[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.
[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.
[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.
[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.
[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:
a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;
b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;
c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;
d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.
[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.
[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.
[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.
[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:
I will definitely find a way to meet her
And you
Remember to take care of yourself if something happens
[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.
[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.
[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.
[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.
[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.
[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:
3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person
(a) is married to another person, or
(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and
(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or
(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.
[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).
[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.
[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.
[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.
[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.
[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.
[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.
[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.
[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.
[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.
[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.
[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:
[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.
[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:
1. Shelter:
(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?
(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?
(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?
2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:
(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?
(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?
(c) What were their feelings toward each other?
(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?
(e) Did they eat their meals together?
(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?
(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?
3. Services:
What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:
(a) preparation of meals;
(b) washing and mending clothes;
(c) shopping;
(d) household maintenance; and
(e) any other domestic services?
4. Social:
(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?
(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?
5. Societal:
What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?
6. Support (economic):
(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?
(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?
(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?
7. Children:
What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?
[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).
[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:
[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.
[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.
[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.
[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:
[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.
[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:
a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.
b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.
c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.
d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.
e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.
f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.
g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.
[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.
[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.
[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.
[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).
[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.
[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.
[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.
[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.
[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.
[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.
[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.
[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:
[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.
[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.
[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.
[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:
[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.
[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:
[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …
[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.
[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.
F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.
[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.
[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.
[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.
[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.
[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.
[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.
[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.
[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.
CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.
[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.
[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.
“Master Elwood”
granted access 在 Milton Goh Blog and Sermon Notes Facebook 的最讚貼文
Everlasting Grace and Mercy
““For a small moment I have forsaken you; but with great mercies will I gather you. In overflowing wrath I hid my face from you for a moment; but with everlasting loving kindness I will have mercy on you,” says Yahweh your Redeemer. “For this is like the waters of Noah to me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah will no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you, nor rebuke you. For the mountains may depart, and the hills be removed; but my loving kindness will not depart from you, and my covenant of peace will not be removed,” says Yahweh who has mercy on you.” Isaiah 54:7-10 WEB)
Mercy is when you are spared from the punishment that you deserve, and Grace is when you receive goodness and favor that you do not deserve.
In the passage above, the Lord speaks to Israel, of which we born-again believers are now considered citizens of.
At the cross, God’s wrath towards sin has been fully poured out on Jesus. For believers, God has no more wrath because Jesus has paid their sin debt and satisfied God’s holiness.
We can now enjoy His “great mercies” and “everlasting loving kindness”.
“Loving kindness” (in Hebrew, pronounced as “hesed”) is the Old Testament word for “grace” that is revealed in the New Testament.
God wants us to be so settled in our hearts about this, such that He swore to never be angry with us nor punish us. God cannot break His vow.
He swore that His grace will never depart from us, and the covenant of peace (the New Covenant of Grace) will never be removed from us.
“Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; through whom we also have our access by faith into this grace in which we stand. We rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” (Romans 5:1-2 WEB)
You will never lose your salvation, and you will never fall out of God’s favor. His love towards you never changes. You have peace with God.
Believe this, and you will keep receiving His grace without the supply of grace being blocked by your own unbelief.
“But we all, with unveiled face seeing the glory of the Lord as in a mirror, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord, the Spirit.” (2 Corinthians 3:18 WEB)
To keep being transformed into Jesus’ image, meditate on beautiful passages like the one in Isaiah 54–see His love, grace, and mercy. Such portions of Scripture acts as a mirror to show you who you (the born-again spirit) have become in Christ. It is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance.
As you behold the Lord in His abundant grace, you will be transformed in body and soul from glory to glory!
If you loved this devotional, you will enjoy “Younger and Younger: 31 Days of God’s Youth Renewal Promises” like these readers have:
“Thank you Milton. I love this book. It has helped me to keep my eyes on Jesus. As He is, so am I in this world. I am getting younger and younger too. I have known the delivery man for many years but recently he has started to call me beautiful when he sees me. I smile and praise the Lord. This book has helped me to receive the blessing of renewing my youth to be younger and younger. All glory to Jesus. He is beautiful, lovely and young. So am I in Him.” - Cynthia Lim
“Hi Milton, your book is beautifully written with deep spiritual insight. It opened my spiritual eyes to the fact that I don’t have to settle for the natural aging process of my body which I kind of took for granted. Through Jesus’ finished work I can enjoy youth renewal. Your daily devotional and scriptures illustrates that very clearly. For which I sincerely thank you! Your book is a “must” for all Seniors who like me focus more on the natural aging than on the spiritual truth! All glory to Jesus!” - Ilva S.
“Hi Milton, I am very very pleased with Younger and Younger. I especially like the Declarations that you speak!! I listen to them several times a day!!! I love that I can just play them whenever I like. Even if I’m not totally paying attention to them, I know that they are still getting into my spirit and mind. Thank you so very much! God Bless!” - Sheree Kleinhuizen
Download your copy of “Younger and Younger” here: https://bit.ly/younger-and-younger
granted access 在 Serrini Youtube 的最佳貼文
這是一個lyric MV 比大家share。無任何特別,只係我地拍攝單曲封面時候嘅outtake vid。
♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎
《網絡安全隱患》單曲各大平台有得聽啦!
隨著前奏警號一響,「網絡安全隱患」Gwendolyn就華麗出場,驕傲地告別過去,用復古舞曲告別餘情(輿情)。Serrini把「網絡安全隱患」這個污名變成了桂冠,用緊湊的編曲逼著聽眾情不自禁擺動身體,感受生活全力加速、痛苦到亢奮、不安到享受的病態瘋狂。單曲輕描淡寫生活中赤裸的恐懼,以Gwendolyn呼喚愛、呼喚釋放、呼喚聽眾「請抱緊壓抑裡的你的我的網絡緣分」。不安時代舞照跳,聽著新專輯、感受同在,大概就是「令你令你令你令你令你令你感到很安全」的原因。
聰明的聽眾還可以聽到《相逢何必曾相識》、梅艷芳年代壞女孩舞曲的影子唷。
♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎
金音獎最佳海外專輯得主Serrini即將在2020夏天帶來最新舞曲專輯《Gwendolyn:網絡安全隱患》,用瘋狂填補世代失落、時不與我之青春疼痛感。香港自2019年夏天起,網絡世界人人自危。你我後知後覺,試圖用不斷的分身和網名來應對安全隱患。大概人生也如此,越在危機裡越需要戴上勇氣的面具防衛,而Gwendolyn就是Serrini的一個鑽石面具,帶你走入舞池party on,人設貫會穿整個專輯。
舞動專輯啟發自隔離期間Serrini投入的活動(每天和室友看瑪丹娜演唱會和家裏亂跳舞)和看了電影Jojo Rabbit。電影最後一幕時,主角小男孩問相依為命的猶太少女:「既然納粹戰敗後不用再躲藏,那接下來如何?」少女聳聳肩,回答:「就跳舞呀!」Serrini就突然「對吼!」,豁然覺得身體表達最純粹,何不出一張專輯伴舞?去年自從拿了金音獎之後,Serrini在華文世界經歷巨大風波,Gwendolyn人偶角色的出現正正展示Serrini在災劫裡閃閃發亮、live as if she was free的性格。就算世界再壞,Serrini要美美地、驕傲地帶領聽眾情不自禁舞動身體。
Serrini去年把個人社交媒體改了名做Gwendolyn,這名來自英國文豪王爾德劇作品The Importance of Being Earnest(不可兒戲)的女主角。全劇諷刺維多利亞時代的嚴肅,女主角對於未婚夫名字極度執著,可以說Gwendolyn就是「一點都不chill」的代名詞。隨意改名字、隨意換面具的Serrini偏偏喜歡挪用這個no chill的名字去做百變的事情,而Gwendolyn人設就像把人世災劫看作遊戲關卡,越難越刺激。
新碟是和好友Yeung Tung共同監製的retro dance作品,經過幾張GTB大碟的磨合,這次製作更加精良和有驚喜。
《網絡安全隱患》 (G Spot)
詞 Serrini
曲 Serrini, Yeung Tung
編 Yeung Tung
監 Serrini, Yeung Tung
混音: Gurkan Asik
Op: JENGS BUNKA (admin by Sony/ATV Music Publishing (HK) Ltd.)
Sp:JENGS BUNKA
餘情無謂再講 講多有更尷尬的對望
誰是對 誰是錯 定還是對仍是錯 通通都不講
人人投入說謊 編一個更諷刺的盼望
迷惑你 迷惑我 定迷惑眾人是我 今天不想講
G Bot
Hi, Gwendolyn.You are securely connected to our very private network.
You may, now, start browsing.
/G Bot
一雙手 來驗證我
一親嘴 全力攻破
扭轉惡劣命運 不妒忌恨 咬著疑問 請抱緊(請抱緊壓迫裡的你的我的網絡緣分)
假天真 回味上癮
一手撕開 全部封印
一吻你就達陣 不用遺憾 繼續行近 我就會
令你令你令你令你令你令你 感覺很安全
Four, three, two, one
仍然期待曙光 等一個有勇氣的碰撞
期待對 期待錯 定期待有人道破 今天不想講
G Bot
Gwendolyn, you have been granted with an acceleration in our virtual access.
Faster, safer, and sexier.
/G Bot
一雙手 來驗證我
一親嘴 全力攻破
扭轉惡劣命運 不妒忌恨 咬著疑問 請抱緊(請抱緊壓迫裡的你的我的網絡緣分)
假天真 回味上癮
一手撕開 全部封印
一吻你就達陣 不用遺憾 繼續行近 我就會
令你令你令你令你 感覺很安全
G Bot
Faster, faster, faster 啊啊啊啊啊啊
/G Bot
親手 來驗證我
點起火 餘燼的錯
今晚我做獵物 歡度末日 繼續淪陷 請抱緊(請抱緊壓迫裡的你的我的網絡緣分)
等一等 提煉亢奮
虛假開心 仍是興奮
一吻煽動末日 激動投入 數字迷陣 我就會
令你令你令你令你 感覺很
granted access 在 lifeintaiwan Youtube 的最讚貼文
Many people take it for granted and foreigners seem to love its convenience and affordability, but is the huge cost involved worth it and does it make any money?? Watch to get my opinion along with some objective facts!
許多人認為這是理所當然的,外國人似乎喜歡它的便利性和可負擔性,但高鐵的巨額成本是值得的,它能賺到錢嗎? 注意觀察我的意見以及一些客觀事實!
#HSR #高鐵 #台灣
去看看我的Patreon,您可以幫助支持該頻道並訪問一些令人驚嘆的VVVIP附加功能:
https://www.patreon.com/lifeintaiwan2017
Check out my Patreon where you can help support the channel and access some AWESOME VVVIP Extra Features:
https://www.patreon.com/lifeintaiwan2017
Subscribe! 訂閱吧 ---- : https://www.youtube.com/c/lifeintaiwan
Facebook/FB ---- : https://www.facebook.com/lifeintaiwan2017
Instagram/IG ---- : https://www.instagram.com/lifeintaiwan2017
看其他的影片:
Check out some other videos:
台灣VS中國
https://youtu.be/L1FDjHDIXtI
與黑素斯一起泡餅乾 BISCUIT dunking with JESUS!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJgp6KvmvY
台灣的外國人吃3種米血! I EAT 3 kinds of PIG's BLOOD cake!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjWRxvltJdw&t=5s
外國人在台灣吃傳統壽司 BEST SUSHI in 台灣
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfutAW6k7DE&t=171s
台灣的最好吃美式早餐 ! Best AMERICAN Breakfast in TAIWAN???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TpH1Cu_-10&t=334s
My Gear:
My camera: http://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/YVbuNZN
My camera & lens kit: http://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/fIa27iy
My nighttime lens: http://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/uNzzneE
My microphone: http://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/RfAUR3F
My video light: http://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/Eu3jmMb
My cheap tripod: http://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/ji2JAee
My computer: http://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/Q7Qn2Z7
拍攝景點:
Shooting Location:
台灣高鐵
送給我信吧!Send me something interesting!
404台中市北區漢口路四段196號
196 Hankou Road, Section 4, Taichung City, TAIWAN 404
音樂:
Music:
Song: Ikson - Do It (Vlog No Copyright Music)
Music promoted by Vlog No Copyright Music.
Video Link: https://youtu.be/3uARld40fpE
granted access 在 Aida Azlin Youtube 的精選貼文
Adult friendships are hard, especially when you live in a foreign country. Which is why meeting my good friend Ruby is a blessing I will never take for granted.
--
If you want more of such reflections, subscribe at http://aidaazlin.com. You'll get access to my Tuesday Love Letters (where I share my reflections, thoughts and musings that I don’t share anywhere else) and access to other cool stuff! "See" you there!
X
A