【你的體重決定了你的財運】
Your Weight Determines Your Wealth Luck
我過去一年因常熬夜製片,飲食不當,荷爾蒙失調,一年內從53公斤直逼61+公斤,體脂更是超過31%
有的人,是胖得可愛。
我是胖得⋯⋯連西裝褲都穿不下。
每個人的八字有個特定的體重範圍。
在這個範圍內,財運亨通。
超過或低過這個範圍,財路多阻。
我的性格屬於行動派,不喜歡矯情。
我要的快樂,不用人催,我自己就會去爭取。
我常告訴客人,不要固執己見,要改變自己。
如果我自己遇到問題,卻不肯向內改變,那我豈不是個偽君子嗎?
所以在七月,我聯絡了台灣的營養師,人生第一次踏上減脂之路,把荷爾蒙調好。
從七月到今天,兩個半月的時間,我瘦了六公斤,但體脂還要再努力,醫師定了22%為目標。
有很多疑難雜症,尤其是婦女病,不是中西醫都看就能醫好,反而得通過飲食調整,才能把病因連根拔起。
因此給我批過八字的客人,都會些許驚訝,為何我特別強調飲食改運。
因為,營養學和八字學有許多共通的知識。
吃得對,自然會健康。
而我主張,不只要吃得對,更要吃得旺,財富貴人才會輕輕鬆鬆滾進來啊,滾進來~ 😂😂😂
送上今早晨運的照片,恭喜自己改運成功!我們一起再接再厲,旺到七彩繽紛!🎉
——————————————————
Due to my endless late nights for video production and poor dietary habits, my hormones went haywire and my weight catapulted from 53kg to over 61kg. My body fat percentage shot to over 31% too.
Some people are chubby in an adorable way.
For me, I can’t even zip up my work pants.
Every one of us has a specific weight range that is most ideal for us, based on our Bazi.
When you are in the range, you are in the prosperous mode.
Out of it, your wealth paths get blocked.
I am a “action speaks louder than words” kind of person.
If I want a kind of happiness, I will go chase after it without needing anyone to hurry me.
I often tell my clients not to be stubborn and resist changing themselves.
If I meet with a problem, yet am unwilling to change from inward, then wouldn’t that make me a hypocrite?
Thus in July, I contacted a nutritionist in Taiwan and for the first time in my life, stepped on my fat-loss journey and to reset the balance in my hormones.
Two and a half months later, I had shed 6kg, but I still got to work harder to push my fat percentage down to the 22% goal set by the doctor.
Many ailments, especially women’s health issues, cannot be resolved, despite seeking the help of TCM or western doctors. In such cases, it calls for a change in lifestyle and dietary habits to nip the problem at the bud.
Most of my Bazi clients are usually surprised by my emphasis on destiny transformation via their choice of food.
There are many intricate links between your Bazi and your nutritional intake.
Eat right and you will naturally be healthy.
I say not only do we need to eat right, more importantly we must eat auspiciously to attract more wealth and benefactors effortlessly.
This pic was taken during my morning walk today. A pat on my back for a successful transformation! Let’s strive on together to more prosperity! 🎉
同時也有12部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過21萬的網紅Ghib Ojisan,也在其Youtube影片中提到,Happy Chinese New Year! This might be the most "YouTuber" video I'm doing - I will try to consume 15 to 20 Chinese New Year food in 24 hours. Every fo...
「meet every lifestyle」的推薦目錄:
- 關於meet every lifestyle 在 謙預 Qianyu.sg Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於meet every lifestyle 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於meet every lifestyle 在 謙預 Qianyu.sg Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於meet every lifestyle 在 Ghib Ojisan Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於meet every lifestyle 在 Titan Tyra Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於meet every lifestyle 在 Titan Tyra Youtube 的最佳貼文
meet every lifestyle 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的精選貼文
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”
meet every lifestyle 在 謙預 Qianyu.sg Facebook 的最佳貼文
【師父的祝福】SHIFU'S WISHES
(English writing below)
那天看完2019年最後一場的風水後,客人給了我這個紅包。她見過我三次,說我每一次都戴著這孔雀的胸針,所以特地給我這有孔雀圖案的紅包封。
很可愛的心思。
我這孔雀胸針不是一般的孔雀,祂是南無大孔雀明王的座駕,是師父2014年在台北的中觀堂送我的。他說,我們做這一行,會遇到行行色色的人,看風水的家有時「煞氣騰騰」,我得保護好我自己,才能利己利他。
而這胸針有受過我根本上師,蓮生活佛,在孔雀明王大法會上開光加持。
師尊曾說:
「孔雀明王」象徵三如來 -
「孔雀明王」是釋迦牟尼佛的受用身,因為釋迦牟尼佛在祂的過去世當中,有一世曾經當過孔雀王,所以是釋迦牟尼佛本身的受用身。
「孔雀明王」是阿彌陀佛的變化身,《阿彌陀經》裡面提到西方極樂世界有「共命之鳥」,有孔雀、鸚鵡、迦陵頻迦,其中的孔雀,就是阿彌陀佛的變化身。
毗盧遮那佛大日如來相貌很莊嚴,祂整個一切相貌就是孔雀明王的相貌。孔雀明王戴大日如來冠,就是大日如來毗盧遮那佛的等流身,相等的身,
因為有這三佛本身的法力集合在一起,所以「孔雀明王」能夠改變定業,定數難逃的也能夠轉化,所以「大孔雀明王」威力無窮。
(資訊來源:www.tbsn.org)
孔雀的天性能吃毒,蜈蚣毒蛇毒蠍都不懼,而且越吃孔雀羽越美麗,身子還會發亮。就算是化學的毒,孔雀也能把我們身上的毒都吃光,有解毒的功效。
因為是師父的囑咐,所以我出道至今,每當工作時,一直都戴著,也能加強我賜福給眾生的能力。
看到最近武漢肺炎病毒的新聞,讓我想起2003年SARS蔓延的時候。
那時我還在新航任職空姐。每天翻開報紙,看電視新聞,都是今天又死了多少人,多少人被感染。
每次去飛行時,難免會想今天會不會輪到自己受感染,萬一像那位把SARS病菌帶回新加坡的前空姐,使自己的家人都患病,如何是好?
我工作運一向很好,公司取消了很多航班,可我還是世界各地到處飛,連 on standby 都被叫去飛往巴黎,那期間薪水絲毫沒受影響。*哭笑不得~
眾生殺業過多,所以過去十多年來,有許多新病種都是從動物傳染給人類,是人類的自作自受。在這裡,奉勸各位我們吃一般的家禽和魚類,其實已經很夠吃了,不要因為貪新鮮或圖個好奇,就去吃野味。貪心的人,從來不會有好結局。
在玄學裡,蝙蝠猶如鼠。若這武漢肺炎病毒,真是從蝙蝠或鼠類動物蔓延開來,因為與庚子年有沖克之故,這病毒的殺傷力將會很大。讓我告訴你,就算武漢肺炎病毒被控制下來,這幾年也依然會有另外一個超級細菌出現。
風水方面, 藥物不要貪方便,而放在客廳見得著的地方,如桌上或櫃子上。把藥物(中藥、西藥、保健品)收起來,能避免家中的人常生病。
基本的保護措施,大家應該都有讀到,大家要照做,才能護己護他,是一善也。
真佛宗的師兄師姐們,我們比一般平民百姓還幸運,因為我們有「阿彌陀佛」罩著。
請記得要披甲護身和結界。師尊慈悲傳下許多法門供我們受灌頂修持,從瑤池金母心咒、高王觀世音真經、大救難咒、上師心咒到孔雀明王心咒等等。
配上好的生活習慣,我們就能做好有形和無形的保護措施,好好地迎春接福。
新春不說掃興話,但人要避得了凶才能趨吉,所以看風水時,永遠是先化煞,才催旺,看八字也是先解決客人的問題,才開運。
我在這裡祝福大家:竹報平安,新春如意。
.......................
That day after my last 2019 Feng Shui audit, the client gave me this red packet. She had seen me thrice, and observed that I wore this peacock brooch every time. So she specially gave me this red packet with a peacock motif.
How adorable of her.
This brooch of mine is no ordinary peacock. It is the throne of Mahamayuri, bought by Shifu at Taipei’s Zhong Guan Hall. He said, we are bound to meet people from all walks of life in our work, and in the homes we do Feng Shui audits for, the energies can be very clashing to our bodies. So I must protect myself well, to benefit both myself and my clients.
This brooch is also personally consecrated and blessed by my Grandmaster, Living Buddha Lian-Sheng, at the Mahamayuri Homa Ceremony.
My Grandmaster expounded:
Mahamayuri represents three Buddhas -
Mahamayuri is the sambhogakaya of Shakyamuni Buddha because in one of his previous lives, Shakyamuni reincarnated as the Peacock King.
Mahamayuri is the nirmanakaya of Amitabha Buddha. According to the Amitabha Sutra, there are jivajivakas, peacocks, parrots, and kalavinkas in the Western Pure Land. The peacocks are the nirmanakaya of Amitabha Buddha.
Mahamayuri's appearance is one and the same as Mahavairocana's, very dignified. The Mahavairocana crown that Mahamayuri wears signifies Her origin is Mahavairocana and that She is the nisyandakaya of Mahavairocana.
Because Mahamayuri embodies the integrated Dharma power of these three Buddhas, She is even able to change predestined karma, which otherwise would be impossible to avoid. Therefore, Her power is enormous and infinite.
(information from www.tbsn.org/english2)
The peacock is able to eat poison, and has no fear of posionous animals like centipedes, snakes and scorpions. In fact, the more poison it eats, the more beautiful its feathers become, and its body will radiate with light.
Because it's the wishes of Shifu, I have been wearing this brooch ever since my debut. Every time I see a client, I wear it to increase my ability to bestow blessings on the client.
Reading about the recent Wuhan virus, I was reminded of 2003 when SARS hit Singapore.
I was still in SQ as a flight stewardess at that time. Every day when I read the papers or watch the news, it would be about how many had died from SARS, and how many are infected.
It was depressing.
When I went for my flights, I worried if I would be the next infected one. What if I became like that ex-flight attendant who brought SARS into Singapore, killing some of her family?
My work luck had always been good. During the SARS period, SQ cancelled many flights, but I was still flying everywhere and even got called up for a Paris flight while on standby. My salary didn't went down at all. *don't know whether to cry or to laugh...
The killing sins of sentient beings are too many and have went overboard, hence in the past decades, there are many new strains of diseases that originated from animals, spreading to humans. This is the retribution of humans.
I advise everybody not to be greedy. The usual meat consumption of poultry, fishes and other farm-bred livestock are already sufficient. Do not eat wildlife out of silly curiosity or nonsensical adventures.
Greedy people never come to a good end.
In Chinese Metaphysics, bats are like rats. So if this Wuhan virus indeed originated from bats and rat-like animals, due to clashes with the Metal Rat year, the damage from this virus will be devastating. Let me tell you this, even if it gets contained, there will be another super virus very soon.
Feng Shui wise, do not place medication (TCM or Western, supplements too) on visible table tops or cabinet tops, out of convenience. Keep the medication inside the cabinets or drawers, for this will prevent frequent sickness in the family.
You would have read from the news the basic precautions you should abide by. Please take note and do it. It is kindness when you protect yourself so as to protect others.
To my Dharma brothers and sisters of True Buddha school, we are more fortunate than the common man in the street, as we have the protection of Amitabha Buddha.
Please do not neglect the Armour Protection mantra and demarcation.
Out of compassion, our Grandmaster had transmitted many Dharma practices for us to seek empowerment and cultivate, from the Root Guru Mantra, Golden Mother Mantra, High King Avalokitesvara Sutra, the Great Relief from Calamities Mantra, to the Mahamayuri Mantra etc.
With good lifestyle habits, we will be take good visible and invisible prevention measures against this virus, and herald in good fortune from the Spring season.
We Chinese do not say dampening words during Chinese New Year, but we must first evade danger before we can receive auspiciousness.
So when I audit Feng Shui, I always negate the clashing energies for my client, and then activate the good ones. For a Bazi, similarly I will first resolve the client's problems, before teaching the client how to open up his/her own door of good fortune.
I wish every one of you: peace and good health in this new year.
meet every lifestyle 在 Ghib Ojisan Youtube 的最佳解答
Happy Chinese New Year! This might be the most "YouTuber" video I'm doing - I will try to consume 15 to 20 Chinese New Year food in 24 hours. Every food has a meaning, for example, eating pineapple tarts is essential because pineapple is pronounced "ong lai" in Hokkien, and it also means "prosperity is coming". Join me as I shove all the Chinese New Year food and goodies in my poor stomach. Huat AH!
Completely irrelevant, but my interview article is out! Really an honor to be featured in a website run by the Singapore government.
https://singaporeglobalnetwork.gov.sg/stories/lifestyle/meet-ghib-ojisan-how-a-backpacking-trip-led-to-full-time-youtube-career-in-singapore/?utm_source=partner-ghibojisan&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=partner-ghib-ojisan&utm_content=meet-ghib-ojisan
Follow me on social medias!
?Instagram https://www.instagram.com/ghibli_ojisan/
?Twitter https://twitter.com/ghibli_ojisan
?Subscribe: http://urx3.nu/HTUJ
?Watch - Funniest Video I’ve Made:https://youtu.be/qmqJ5A4DaOI
?Merch Links(アパレル):
SE Asia | https://ghib-ojisan.secure-decoration.com/shop/category/T-Shirt?c=2731898
USA & EU | https://teespring.com/stores/ghib-ojisan
Japan | https://suzuri.jp/ghib-ojisan
Business Enquiries
✉️[email protected]
You are welcome to send fan mails but I may not be able to respond to all of them. But I immensely appreciate your support. Thank you!
#Singapore #ChineseNewYear #CNY2021
meet every lifestyle 在 Titan Tyra Youtube 的精選貼文
My beauty brand - SECONDATE launched a new product that I'm so excited to share! Di video ini aku kasih lihat lengkap dari packaging, shades, swatches dan day-to-night look tutorial pakai instapeach palette. Also checkout the AR Instapeach world where you can meet peachbum our instapeach mascot!
ios and android - http://focusar-studio.com/xr/
android (APP) - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Secondate.Secondate
INSTRUCTIONS - https://www.instagram.com/p/CHVTT3NBlLj/?igshid=1uv3hddpytjfk
Special thanks to @sumstudio.id for realizing this AR experience for all of us to enjoy!
https://www.instagram.com/sumstudio.id/
☆ Check out my beauty brand SECONDATE here
https://www.secondatebeauty.com
Instagram:
https://instagram.com/secondatebeauty
https://instagram.com/titantyra
☆ F A Q
What ARE you?
I’m Chinese-Indonesian from Jakarta, living in both Indonesia and Singapore. I make beauty and lifestyle videos and I upload every Wednesday and sometimes Sunday. Make sure to subscribe so you never miss any of my silly videos. You don’t have to, though. But just do it because it’s free anyway :D
How old are you?
I’m 25 years young.
What camera, lens, and software do you use?
Vlog camera: Sony A5100 with 16-50mm f3.5-5.6 and Sony RX100 V
Tutorial camera: Sony 6500 with Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm f/4 ZA OSS Lens
Mic: Rode VideoMic GO
When I edit myself, it is edited with Final Cut Pro X.
☆ S P E C I AL T H A N K S
Edited by Patricia:
http://instagram.com/patricia.ticia
[email protected]
☆ S P O N S O R S H I P
This video was not sponsored and all opinions are my own honest thoughts.
For Business & PR opportunities, please email: titantyrainc@gmail.com
☆ M U S I C
Epidemic Sound
meet every lifestyle 在 Titan Tyra Youtube 的最佳貼文
Quarantine Vlogs adalah vlog series aku selama aku social distancing di rumah karena pandemic COVID-19. Karena aku tau banyak dari kalian yang self-quarantine juga, aku akan daily vlogging dan semoga kita bisa saling nemenin. Watch my daily vlogs with a cup of tea, with some snacks, and keep my videos rolling in the background while you do your work :)
Don’t forget to share my videos with someone you care about!
Previous episodes
Day One https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPZF7...
Day Two https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7LQT...
Day Three https://youtu.be/2F5occDnTAI
Day Four https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzg3_...
Day Five https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v4Qb...
Day Six https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXXhr...
Day Seven https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5iec...
Day Eight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YwgJ...
Day Nine https://youtu.be/KZDh8kEkws0
Day Ten https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BB4z...
Day Ten Part 2 lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7SfO...
Day Eleven https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv-bT...
Day Twelve https://youtu.be/JMjU884ecyg
Day Thirteen https://youtu.be/h-_zh8hMudE
Day Fourteen https://youtu.be/Ap-M3cbDT8I
Day Fifteen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdJLB...
Day Sixteen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj2uC...
Day Seventeen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kW2i...
Day Eighteen https://youtu.be/WBvDXfKX7Ro
Day Nineteen https://youtu.be/nvpJPu5EFnc
Day Twenty https://youtu.be/pczcB70zRKk
☆ S O C I A L M E D I A
Instagram:
https://instagram.com/titantyra
My Beauty Brand
https://www.secondatebeauty.com
Titan And Gaius Couple Channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4P...
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/Titan-Tyra-1...
☆ F A Q
What ARE you?
I’m Chinese-Indonesian from Jakarta, living in both Indonesia and Singapore. I make beauty and lifestyle videos and I upload every Wednesday and sometimes Sunday. Make sure to subscribe so you never miss any of my silly videos. You don’t have to, though. But just do it because it’s free anyway :D
How old are you?
I’m 25 years young.
What camera, lens, and software do you use?
Vlog camera: Sony RX100 V
Tutorial camera: Sony 6500 with Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm f/4 ZA OSS Lens
Mic: Rode VideoMic GO
Edited with Final Cut Pro X.
☆ S P O N S O R S H I P
This video was not sponsored and all opinions are my own honest thoughts.
For Business & PR opportunities, please email: titantyrainc@gmail.com
☆ M U S I C
Epidemic Sound