關於 love in time (2022) ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

What’s one thing that comes to your mind when you think of Aaron? “His sweet smile” says Papa.

You always smile so cheekily! It’s like you have something up your sleeves. You would take a piece of tissue to clean the table. After 3 wipes, run to the bin and come back to proudly tell us “Throw”! We will tell you “Cannot waste! Yeye beat!” The playful you will beat your hand to show us how yeye would lightly slap your hand if he’s home.

Aaron is 18 months old! That’s 1 and a half years of you, my dearest sonshine. You still prefer to call me Mimi which is music to my ears! You can baby-call me “mimi” for as long as you like because I know that I will miss that baby you very soon. You are still speaking mostly 1 syllabus words and some new favorite words include, mei mei, kor kor, there, nice, car, bus, throw, bang, yes, no, piggy, bubbles, egg, bread and please! Bao bao is still ba ba now. You take instructions well, better on things that interest you - like making coffee with papa and we tell you “Want to cycle?” You will run to your shoe rack, take your helmet! You love car rides and the vehicles on the road. You will look out of the windows and very excitedly exclaim “Mimi mimi!”! I don’t even have to turn to know that you are pointing at the vehicle in front of us. You will only stop calling mimi after I have acknowledged you by saying “Oh yes, is that the bus, Aaron!” You will do a slow nod, with eyes closed and say mmm!

You are still unadventurous with food, extremely particular with appearance of food. You refused red bean pancake because it’s reddish black. Your favorite food are snacks and eggs - any way we prepare, you love it! Snack reward system hasn’t worked on you - to you, no means no.

You have 8 upper teeth and 8 lower teeth, which is 3 more lower teeth from last month! You are growing way too fast, my love. It’s such a dilemma, loving to see you meet milestones yet wanting you to grow up slow. Sigh… nonetheless, I’m enjoying all the time I have with you before we start you at preschool in January 2022, when you’re 2 years old. Happy 18 months old, Aaron boy. I love you so so much! Swipe to see a smiling 8m old Aaron!

Taking a break from her busy schedule at the 74th Festival de Cannes, actress Alba Rohrwacher reveals her awed respect for this special event in the world of cinema, and her love of the pleated navy gazar Autumn-Winter 2021-2022 Haute Couture dress by Maria Grazia Chiuri she wore there for the presentation of the film 'Three Floors' in which she stars.
© Video: Daniel Darmon
Photo: Pierre Mouton

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”

สายการผลิต 2022 Audi e-Tron GT production รถสปอร์ตซีดานพลังไฟฟ้า พละกำลังสูงสุด 640 แรงม้า ก่อนเปิดตัวในเมืองไทย

ก่อนที่จะมีการเปิดตัวในเมืองไทยอย่างเป็นทางการ ในอีกไม่กี่วันข้างหน้า เราขอพามาชมสายการผลิต Audi e-Tron GT รถสปอร์ตซีดานหรูพลังงานไฟฟ้า จากตระกูล e-Tron ซึ่งในต่างประเทศเพิ่งมีการเปิดตัวในวันที่ 9 กุมภาพันธ์ที่ผ่านมา โดยทำตลาดใน 2 รุ่นด้วยกันคือรุ่น e-Tron GT quattro และรุ่น RS e-tron GT

With an energized driving demonstration and a world premiere featuring high-caliber participants, Audi has presented its new electric spearhead – the Audi e-tron GT. In two events on the digital Day of Progress, the Four Rings showcased the highlights of this fully electric Gran Turismo: dynamic driving performance, emotional design, and sustainability.

“The e-tron GT is a stand-alone Gran Turismo, reinterpreted for the future. Its looks are a testament to premium automotive design.Bringing impressive driving performance, this is electro-mobility in the most emotive way. And with its sustainable concept, it takes a stand,” explains Markus Duesmann, CEO of AUDI AG. “Because it’s not just the drive concept that is sustainable. The entire production at our Böllinger Höfe site now has a carbon neutral energy balance.This sends an important signal – for the site, our workforce and the future viability of Audi.”

Audi also set a new benchmark with the digital world premiere, the Day of Progress. Two digital events presented the Audi e-tron GT: in the Sprint of Progress, the Formula E driver Lucas di Grassi and the sustainability entrepreneur and Formula 1 world champion Nico Rosberg demonstrated the dynamic driving performance of the Audi RS e-tron GT alongside the current Formula E racing car of the Four Rings, the Audi e-tron FE07. In a trip on the circuit of the Audi Driving Experience Center in Neuburg an der Donau, the spotlight was on the dynamic performance of the new model.

In the Celebration of Progress, the brand with the Four Rings introduced the Audi e-tron GT to the public for the first time. In the hour-long virtual show, Markus Duesmann and Hildegard Wortmann, Board Member for Sales and Marketing, together with further Audi protagonists such as Henrik Wenders, Senior Vice President for the Audi Brand, and Marc Lichte, Head of Design, presented the highlights of the new model.

A varied program emphasized the forward-looking attitude of the Four Rings brand. With reference to the importance of design, sustainability and performance, the actor and producer Tom Hardy, the designer Stella McCartney and Nico Rosberg added their personal insights. Themusical accompaniment to the unveiling of the car was performed by the US-American singer and songwriter Janelle Monáe, while Steven Gätjen as moderator guided the audience through the show.

The GREENTECH FESTIVAL and Audi, a founding partner of this platform for sustainability, together presented the GREEN FUTURE Award for the first time as part of the world premiere of the Audi e-tron GT. The prize, part of the festival’s GREEN AWARDS, is given to projects and persons that promote environmentally compatible urbanization and at the same time make an important contribution to improving the quality of life in urban infrastructure. The winner is the start-up Zencity, based in Tel Aviv, with an algorithm that collects and analyzes social media posts and local news from cities.

Both events are still available to be accessed online.

Quotes from the Celebration of Progress
“The Audi e-tron GT is the beginning of a new era for Audi. Our aim is to shape the future of electric premium mobility. Love of detail, maximum precision, and design that points the way to the future show how much passion we at Audi put into designing and making vehicles.”

Hildegard Wortmann, Board Member for Sales and Marketing, AUDI AG

“With the Audi e-tron GT we are putting the DNA of Audi on the road. The Gran Turismo superbly reflects our innovative strength and our pioneering spirit. For us it is already part of a line of icons of the brand, alongside the Audi TT and the Audi R8.”

Henrik Wenders, Senior Vice President, Audi Brand, AUDI AG

“For me, progress means creating something new. Something that no one has ever done before in this form. Designing a fully electric vehicle is like this: the entire design process has to be thought through anew.”

Marc Lichte, Head of Design, AUDI AG

“The Audi RS e-tron GT is a milestone in the development of electrified high-performance models.”

Lucas di Grassi, Formula E driver and entrepreneur

“Electric mobility is the future. Of course the path to the goal is a long one. It’s great to see that Audi is taking this path with determination.”

Nico Rosberg, sustainability entrepreneur and Formula 1 world champion

ディズニーの名曲をたくさん混ぜて一曲にしたら神曲が誕生するのでは？と思ったのでやってみました。
MELOGAPPAは色々な角度から音楽を楽しむYouTubeチャンネルです！！
ぜひ高評価＆チャンネル登録お願いします！！

■公式ファンクラブアプリ「URAGAPPA」
https://fanicon.net/fancommunities/3314

■2022年開催「全国ZEPPツアー"555"」
https://tixplus.jp/feature/melogappa_2022/

■Zeppツアーチケット追加販売お知らせメーリングサービス（登録無料）
https://j.bmb.jp/bm/p/f/tf.php?id=konno2020&task=regist

■Twitter
https://twitter.com/melogappa

■TikTok
https://www.tiktok.com/@melogappa

■お問い合わせは全てこちらのメールまで！
info@melogappa.com



【素晴らしき原曲】
A Whole New World（Aladdin）「アラジン」→https://youtu.be/eitDnP0_83k
Beauty and the Beast（Beauty and the Beast）「美女と野獣」→https://youtu.be/axySrE0Kg6k
Let It Go（Frozen）「アナと雪の女王」→https://youtu.be/L0MK7qz13bU
Remember me（Coco）「リメンバー・ミー」→https://youtu.be/3iDxU9eNQ_0
You’ve Got a Friend In Me（Toy Story）「トイ・ストーリー」→https://youtu.be/DNZUKm0ApEM
When You Wish Upon a Star（Pnocchio）「ピノキオ」→https://youtu.be/pguMUFyJ3_U
It’s a Small World「小さな世界」
Circle of Life（The Lion King）「ライオン・キング」→https://youtu.be/GibiNy4d4gc
Under the Sea（The Little Mermaid）「リトル・マーメイド」→https://youtu.be/GC_mV1IpjWA

ジブリ名曲バージョンもぜひ見て下さい！→https://youtu.be/d4Ksx7hyk1k


【曲を合体シリーズ】
「白日 / King Gnu」×「Lemon / 米津玄師」→https://youtu.be/9xEfaHc0i8I
「紅蓮華 / LiSA」×「U.S.A. / DA PUMP」→https://youtu.be/OQy5OCUugis
「夜に駆ける / YOASOBI」×「紅蓮華 / LiSA」→https://youtu.be/zi290ibhwew
「Pretender / Official髭男dism」×「もりのくまさん / 童謡」→https://youtu.be/SRX4e7ZDsX4
「白日 / King Gnu」×「やぎさんゆうびん / 童謡」→https://youtu.be/ZvpKPXkbJKI
「Flamingo / 米津玄師」×「ももたろう / 童謡」→https://youtu.be/OOcHl-XAbUk
「前前前世 / RADWIMPS」 ×「ももたろう / 童謡」→https://youtu.be/fSjpwwde2qg
「香水 / 瑛人」勇気100%のカラオケで歌える説→https://youtu.be/yo9UaI9b-GA
「Let It Go ～ありのままで～」紅蓮華のカラオケで歌える説→https://youtu.be/yNSz-SuNhlU
「COSMOS / 合唱曲」×「あなたへ～旅立ちに寄せるメッセージ～ / 合唱曲」→https://youtu.be/2iF7ZfxwUmo
『香水 / 瑛人』と『100万回の「I love you」/ Rake』→https://youtu.be/ZQAdT8nfNas
「馬と鹿 / 米津玄師」×「時の旅人 / 合唱曲」→https://youtu.be/V28YUo1Ba7w
「I LOVE… / Official髭男dism」×「恋 / 星野源」→https://youtu.be/mmkgs88LFOA
「別の人の彼女になったよ / wacci」×「小さな恋のうた / MONGOL800」→https://youtu.be/efaIUmmstPY
Pretenderっぽい前前前世→https://youtu.be/hrPAnkoQ_j8
前前前世っぽいPretender→https://youtu.be/qL0AgwyzxkU
CMソングのフレーズだけでオリジナル曲→https://youtu.be/s50eXtvpQvg

【関連動画】
The Best Animated Classic Disney Songs Of All Time 1937 - 2018→https://youtu.be/4DanMuhLRVE
The Ultimate Disney Classic Songs Playlist With Lyrics 2020 - Disney Soundtracks Playlist 2020→https://youtu.be/3VikHoPxvyM
ディズニーピアノメドレー【作業用、勉強、睡眠用BGM】Disney Relaxing Piano Collection (Piano Covered by kno)→https://youtu.be/g8NVwN0_mks
DISNEY PRINCESS MEDLEY - SINGING EVERY PRINCESS SONG AT WALT DISNEY WORLD→https://youtu.be/RrZHOh77F3Q
Top 10 Disney Songs (HD)→https://youtu.be/1t0-p6Uda_k
DISNEY MEDLEY - Mashup of 13 best Disney songs! // Ashley Hess→https://youtu.be/-SSDORm1AH0
DISNEY MASHUP (ESPAÑOL) 2 - Zamy Baumüller→https://youtu.be/CRxJttphiEM
【対決】ディズニーマッシュアップメドレー −Disney Mash Up Medley Battle−→https://youtu.be/GhFYW3qyesU
【メドレー】Disneyメドレー演奏してみた！→https://youtu.be/RXWboz9EVfE
MASHUP PRINCESAS DISNEY - Zamy Baumüller→https://youtu.be/PVencqeb_EI

【MELOGAPPA再生リスト】
とりあえずこれ見てください！おすすめリスト→https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ1lHJeSxKY5zB8lxtdJROOuvrTQeB77G
CMソングのフレーズだけでオリジナル曲つくってみた→https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ1lHJeSxKY7EIIxuXczV1t-4XiXAsQBp
短調にしたら絶望感がすごい→https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ1lHJeSxKY55H6hPTgumS0NYOwm4ongu
違う曲のカラオケで歌える説→https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ1lHJeSxKY5CCe2Zc7T5kBQW_UK0XNPi
曲を合体シリーズ→https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ1lHJeSxKY7VWA2Hvdr633REyD2NYl8x
ご本人と歌う名曲短調アレンジシリーズ→https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ1lHJeSxKY7aHZoMLlqAraEzc46sKQWS
鬼滅の刃カバー→https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ1lHJeSxKY6Cog3wah5zjndQEeO0Yw_L
合唱曲シリーズ→https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ1lHJeSxKY5r-vwCenRorGGZ5sSZ9Jin
「ZEPP TOUR 555」詳細まとめリスト→https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ1lHJeSxKY6-Rdx2HZr5DS6o3rUFq2ES

MELOGAPPA


■MELOGAPPAへのお問い合わせはこちらのメールへ！
info@melogappa.com


#ディズニー #Disney #MELOGAPPA

Do you want to go to New Zealand but you don’t have enough time to both see the North & South Island (you think) ？ We made a complete guide on how you can do a 1 week road trip and both explore the North & South Island. Enjoy !

ニュージランドに行きたいけど、両方の島を旅するには時間が足りないとと思っていませんか？１週間で旅する方法はこれです！ 
---------------------------------------------------  

こちらも忘れずに！Come say Hi !

Instagram Maaike → https://www.instagram.com/maaikedayo/
Instagram Takeru → https://www.instagram.com/t4kerudayo/
Twitter → https://twitter.com/maaikeandtakeru

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

Airbnb  

以下URLからAirbnbに登録すると、宿泊料金は¥ 3,700オフになります。 さらに、¥ 5,280以上の体験が¥ 1,388オフになります！  
Get 40 dollars off your first booking on airbnb by using the link below !  

https://www.airbnb.jp/c/maaikev48?currency=JPY  

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

私たちのカメラアイテム・Our camera gear  

Sony α7III： https://amzn.to/2Xz90yy
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 di iii rxd： https://amzn.to/2K2Lhnr
Samyang 14mm AF : https://amzn.to/2WReyHP
Zhiyun Crane Plus ： https://amzn.to/2I37D5Z
Gopro Hero 5： https://amzn.to/2XAhbL9
DJI Mavic Pro ： https://amzn.to/2I1pjPr
Atlas camera bag: https://amzn.to/2K0MNq4

This video is not sponsored. Some of the links above may be affiliates. 
このビデオはスポンサー付いていません。アフィリエイトプログラムを利用しています。

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

音楽・Music  

この動画で使われた音楽は全てEpidemicSoundからダウンロードした曲です。  
All the music we use is from EpidemicSound.  

https://www.epidemicsound.com/  

この動画で使われた曲名・Songs we used in this video:  
Changli - Ooyy  
Luwaks - Trouble by Trouble (My favorite song in this video !)  
Luwaks - Below Horizon  
Luwaks - Sidney  
Alder - No Drama  
Luwaks - No Need to Beg Pardon  

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

ビジネスメールアドレス・Business email  

maaikeandtakeru@gmail.com  

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

以下ビデオもぜひご覧ください！More videos like this:

→ 5 days in Japan//日本で5日間過ごすなら  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl-PbYuSXXQ  
→ How and when to enjoy the mountains in Japan//季節毎の山の楽しみ方  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQqMCVVHnLM&t=22s  
→ Go Indonesia ! 4 days in Bali // バリ島で４日間を過ごした  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Y-Bex-HXQ  

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

自己紹介・Introduction

こんにちは、ベルギー生まれのマーイケと日本生まれのタケルです。日本に住んでいます。旅好きの私達は2022年までに50カ国を旅することを計画しています。私達をフォローして、新しい旅の体験をしましょう。 

Hi ! We are Maaike & Takeru, a Belgian + Japanese couple living in Japan. We love traveling and we set a goal to travel to 50 countries by the end of 2022 ! Follow us along to discover the places we visit during our travel adventures.  

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

#newzealand #ニュージーランド #旅行 #travel #roadtrip #ロードトリップ