關於 refer to a as b ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Now on Sale

https://takaya.zaiko.io/e/hanayuishi2021

Live streaming from Konkai-Komyoji Temple in Kyoto

Saturday, October 30, 2021

15:30 Start on fine weather
17:30 Start on rainy weather

Archive video will be available on Zaiko until 23:59, Wednesday 2/11/2021. (You can watch as many times as you want during this period)

NOTICE: *In case of raining, the performance starts at 17:30. You will receive an email from Zaiko if the time is changed on the day.

【Tickets】
2250yen (including 250yen for handling fee)
Available on Zaiko from 1 Oct (Fri) 10:00 - 3 Nov 21:00 (JST)
*You will need to register for a ZAIKO account to purchase tickets.

【Before Watch】
Register and watch guide
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwDzQxC8vlE

☆Please refer to the support page on the ZAIKO website for information on how to watch the show and detailed settings.
https://zaiko.io/support
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
Tohru Yamasaki
President of T2Generation
Organizer of “TSUKENOKAI”. Tsukeuchi (tsuke percussionist) for Kabuki.Born in Kojima, Kurashiki City, Okayama Pref. on 28 February, 1969. Blood Type: B
1989: Joined in LIFE SOGOBUTAI Co.,Ltd. (formerly known as LIFE Bijutsusha Ltd.) located in Takamatsu City, Kagawa Pref. Autumn 1990: Moved to Tokyo.October 1992: Joined in Pacific Art Center Inc. after working freelance. Assigned to SHINBASHI ENBUJO (theater) to start a career as a tsukeuchi (tsuke percussionist). Since then, engaged in Kabuki performances in and outof Japan. August 2020: Resigned from Pacific Art Center Inc. Established T2Generation to start supporting cultural activities through tsukeuchi performance. Based on the career, trying various performances of art and culture by collaborating with others from different fields.
�Tsuke is one of the sound effects to emphasize the movements and power of the characters on the stage, which impresses the play more effectively. It is often used for the important scenes: when the main character is appearing on stage, changing his/her clothes, when the stage setting changes (stage elevator rises or a building collapses), and to highlight the effect of props.“Oto (sound) wo tsuke-ru” means “adding sound to the play”, which is the reason why it is called “tsuke”. The two wood blocks to make sounds are called “tsuke-uchi”. Tsukeuchi (tsuke percussionist) sits on the stage left (audience’s right side) where he makes sounds using tools, tsuke-ita (tsuke wood board)and tsuke-gi (two wood blocks).
WEBT2Generation https://t-yamasaki.wixsite.com/t2generation
TSUKENOKAI https://t-yamasaki.wixsite.com/tsukenokai

HANAYUISHI TAKAYA
TAKAYA, as known as HANAYUISHI, is an artist based inkyoto who combines floristry with art and fashion to create one-of-a kind headdresses. Takaya has invented and developed a technique of tying living plants like flowers.vegetables.fruits.twigs.plants and even taxidermy into hairs to make highly unique and ethereal works - as he describes as a “unity of human and nature.”
Takaya creates his works on the spot,choosing flowers to with cloth or personality of the person. It is an intuitive and spontaneous work that it is almost impossible to plan the design ahead since flowers are living things every bloom is different.every stems has its own line.There is beauty of working with living plants as opposed to dried plants - as if Takaya intensifies the energy of the living plants.the result of his stylings are so vibrant and memorable.
Takaya shows his work through photography and live performance.
Performances are often held in unique locations like Buddhis temples and museums in throughout Japan and Sweden. He has been featured in numerous publications and broadcasts around the world, including Daily Telegraph, Glamour Italia, Holland Herald, and NHK World TV.
Takaya also collaborates with Yumi Katsura, a well-known bridal fashion designer for Yumi Katsura Grand Collection.
http://www.takaya

KONKAI-KOMYOJI TEMPLE
https://www.kurodani.jp/en/

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”

【#不同凡飨】两位山东人都郁和杜士贵，原本在家乡完全不认识，却有缘在他乡遇故知，到马来西亚求学后认识彼此，结为好友。

每逢聚会，他们必定一起切磋厨艺，水饺、油爆大虾、奶白鱼汤都是他们印象中“不同凡飨”的家乡味。虽然厨艺与食材无法与大厨媲美，可每一口都是对乡愁最好的慰籍。

两人一边包水饺，一边聊家乡美景，就是最快乐的时刻。山东是座热情的城市，每片山水、每座城镇巧妙融合现代与历史，充满“好客山东”的魅力。

像是著名景点大明湖畔，四季景色皆美，到那里散心赏荷花，很是赏心悦目。又或是登上五岳之首泰山，感受扑面而来的磅礴气势。

这一期，我们跟随主持人黄明慧一起料理素三鲜水饺，感受两位山东留学生他乡遇故知的美好情谊。

▌出品：吉隆坡中国文化中心 China Cultural Centre in Kuala Lumpur

▌制作：访问The Interview 访问 The Interview

▌合作支持：中国工商银行、马来西亚中国餐饮业协会 Kascra

▌媒体支持：畅游行 Travellution Singapore

【看节目 送奖品】

记得一定要把节目看完哦～因为每一集我们有总值超过RM2000 的餐券，以及一份为期1年的《畅游行》月刊杂志（共12期）要送给你哦！

参加规则：
1. 关注 “China Cultural Centre in Kuala Lumpur” 面子书或“吉隆坡中国文化中心”微信公众号；
2. 按赞并分享此视频（记得要将帖子设为公开哦！）
3. 到“China Cultural Centre in Kuala Lumpur”面子书或“吉隆坡中国文化中心”微信公众号留言告诉我们：

a)节目里“山东人的素三鲜水饺，指的是哪三种食材？”
A. 鸡蛋、木耳、韭菜
B. 鸡蛋、韭菜、萝卜

b)有机会我想到山东旅游，因为......（不超过120字）

**参赛截止日期为3月10日中午12时

#旅游 #美食 #文化 #家乡 #吉隆坡中国文化中心 #访问TheInterview Jane黄明慧 #黄明慧 #都郁 #杜士贵 #山东 #水饺 #素三鲜水饺 #济南 #大明湖畔 #泰山 #泰安 #好客山东

Two Shandong individuals, Du Yu and Du Shigui did not know each other at all back in their hometown. But they were destined to be acquainted with each other in another place. While furthering their studies in Malaysia, they got to know each other and became good friends.

At every get-together, they must delve into their cooking skills together and learn from each other. Dumplings, fried prawns and milky-white fish soup are all hometown flavors that are "no mediocre hometown epicurean" as far as their impressions can attest to. Although the cooking skills and ingredients cannot match that of the chef, but each bite represents the best consolation to their homesickness.

The two of them prepare dumplings and chat about the beauty of their hometown which is the happiest moment. Shandong is a passionate warm city where every landscape and every town that ingenuously blends modernity with history, depicting the full charm of "hospitable Shandong".

Like the famous scenic spot of Daming Lake, the vista is beautiful throughout all the four seasons. People go there to relax and appreciate the blooming lotus which is aesthetically pleasing to their eyes. Alternatively, one may climb Mount Taishan or Mount Tai, the foremost peak amongst the five major mountains of China, and feel the overwhelming aura of its majesty.

In this issue, we follow host Jane Ng to make 3-in-1 fresh vegetarian dumplings and partake the fabulous friendship between the two overseas studying Shandong students who had met in some faraway place beyond their own hometown.

▌Publisher: China Cultural Centre in Kuala Lumpur
▌Producer： The Interview
▌Supported by：Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) & Kuala Lumpur And Selangor Chinese Restaurant Association (KASCRA)
▌Media Partner : Travellution Singapore

[Watch & Win Fabulous Prizes!]
Remember to finish viewing the show because we have cash vouchers worth up to RM2000 and a Special Prize of a complimentary one-year subscription to “TRAVELLUTION” for the lucky winners.

Eligible participants are to follow and complete all the steps below:
1. Like and Follow the Facebook page of "China Cultural Centre in Kuala Lumpur" Facebook or follow the official Wechat account of "China Cultural Centre in Kuala Lumpur".

2. Like and Share the event post of video on Facebook (Edit Audience > Select Privacy > set as “PUBLIC”)

3. Leave a comment by answering the questions below on the Facebook post or official Wechat account of “China Cultural Centre in Kuala Lumpur”.

a) In the program, which three kinds of ingredients do Shandong people's 3-In-1 vegetarian fresh dumplings refer to?";
A. Eggs, black fungus, leek.
B. Eggs, leeks, radish.
b) Given a chance, I wish to travel to Shandong because ...... (In not more than 120 words).

* * The deadline for entry is 12:00 noon on March 10, 2021

【Marco賞禮GIVEAWAYS 活動六】朋自遠方來釣魚 | 香港釣魚 | 艇釣 | 維港東 【Ventolation 透氣鞋】
Such a pleasure to have a friend for fishing | [Hong Kong HK Fishing : BoatGame] East of Victoria Harbour {Voice Over + CC}

MDreams Ventolation 官方網站：
https://www.mdreams.com/collections/ventolation

【Marco賞禮GIVEAWAYS 活動六】有獎問答:
今次收到的Ventolation Kingston透氣鞋， 是哪一個呎碼?
A. UK 6
B. UK 7
C. UK 8
D. UK 9
請將答案寫在 Youtube 留言
答中而又被抽中的幸運兒，將會得到相同鞋款的 透氣鞋一對，名額2位
2021年9月10日中午11:59:59 前參加
公布舉行日期: 2021年9月12日晚上抽出 (不會直播)

答案: B
2位幸運兒名單:
Yiu Wing
Harry Chan
將會有專人聯絡

Business Cooperation and Media 商業合作、採訪通知：tkcmarco@gmail.com
******************************************************************
Media Interview(s) OR Reproduce with authorization 媒體採訪或授權轉載
Media 媒體報導
: viuTV 電視特輯 :
發展局 海濱事務委員會呈獻 【維港．圍講】
播出時間（2021年5月1日 ）
第4集 - 魚樂無窮: 釣魚發燒友維港遊
https://viu.tv/encore/lets-talk-about-victoria-harbour/lets-talk-about-victoria-harboure4yue-lok-mo-kung--diu-yue-faat-siu-yau-wai-gong-yau
: Oriental Daily 東方日報 :
【手絲釣魚】岸釣系列#1 數碼港係熱門釣魚點？釣足30條泥鯭！
https://tv.on.cc/index.html?vid=OUGC20200707_900009_01&createtime=1594094281&subsection=468
More...Please refer to the channel description 更多... 請參閱頻道簡介
******************************************************************

==================================================================
YouTube Channel 頻道 : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO_5XP-qd-udNxBlzzSzgvw?sub_confirmation=1
Donate and Support my Channel 資助我的頻道：https://www.paypal.me/handlinefishing
==================================================================
Facebook 手絲釣魚交流群: https://www.facebook.com/groups/616740025403230/
Instagram 官方賬戶: https://www.instagram.com/handlinefishing_hk/
==================================================================
You can purchase my gear through the link below 你可以經以下連結購買產品
硬件
1人稱相機 (新) Insta360 Go 2 - https://www.insta360.com/sal/go_2?insrc=INRW1ZI
360相機 Insta360 ONE X2 - https://www.insta360.com/sal/one_x2?insrc=INRW1ZI
360相機 Insta360 ONE R - https://www.insta360.com/sal/one_r?insrc=INRW1ZI
1拖2咪 MirFakAudio - https://store.mirfakaudio.com?sca_ref=986772.ti6Y4oRgJX
以上是購買連結，你在購買時會得到額外的商家優惠，同時，不會因為商家的優惠而產生額外成本，可以支持這個頻道發展，先感謝你使用
音樂連結 Artlist.io Referral link Artlist 介紹碼連結 : https://artlist.io/Handline-861488
==================================================================
Background Music 背景音樂名稱 : As Long As Im With You by Anse Rigby
Source 來源 : Artlist.io
Referral link 介紹碼連結 : https://artlist.io/Handline-861488
Background Music 背景音樂名稱 : Dead-end maze (https://johnnyhk.bandcamp.com/track/dead-end-maze)
Source 來源 : Troglojam
==================================================================

#Fishing #釣魚 #手絲釣魚 #香港釣魚

まだまだ初訪問、東京の家系ラーメン店！東京都目黒区自由が丘『横浜らーめん渡来武（トライブ）』に初訪問してきました。東急東横線・大井町線「自由ヶ丘駅」から徒歩約２分にあるお店です。武蔵家で修行されたことがユニークな店名の由来だそう。国産米の無料ライスはおかわり放題という嬉しいサービスもありますよ。詳しい営業時間等はお店のTwitter等を参照くださいね。それでは早速動画をご覧ください！

＊実際のトッピングと異なる場合があります。
＊感染対策を徹底して撮影を行っています。
＊撮影に際しては、お店の方や周りのお客様に充分配慮して撮影をおこなっています。

I visited the Iekei Ramen shop in Tokyo for the first time! I visited "Yokohama Ramen Toraibu (Tribe)" in Jiyugaoka, Meguro-ku, Tokyo for the first time. This shop is about a 2-minute walk from "Jiyugaoka Station" on the Tokyu Toyoko Line and Oimachi Line. It seems that the unique name of the store is derived from the training at the Musashi-ya. There is also a nice service that you can refill the free rice of domestic rice as much as you want. Please refer to the store's Twitter etc. for detailed business hours. Then, please watch the video immediately!
* It may differ from the actual topping.
* We take thorough measures against infection.
* When shooting, we take the shop and the customers around us into consideration.


いつもありがとうございます！( ´ ▽ ` )
高評価＆チャンネル登録もよろしくお願いいたします！

#家系ラーメン #渡来武 #自由が丘 #ロイドごはん #フラメンコロイド

—————《サブチャンネルもよろしくお願いします！》—————————————

【メロンシートジャーニー】
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNlBAUziFWkJZFY_u3t65A

【フラメンコロイド】
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsFJHNg3SR41R2a3vctUInw


—————《本日の店舗情報》—————————————————

『渡来武（トライブ）』
https://tabelog.com/tokyo/A1317/A131703/13185549/


—————《ロイドごはんオススメの動画！　 ROIDGOHANs’ Recommended video》———————————

78才おじいちゃん屋台ラーメンの朝『幸っちゃん』夜明けの銀座【飯テロ】Old Style Ramen Stall Yatai Japanese Street Food
https://youtu.be/YHiWYvhxUI4

【家系ラーメン特集!】
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6yW17uB9uIVUmOS8qnXrRwcBu8W-uRYZ


—————《オリジナルサイトの情報》—————————————————

★ロイドwalker《人生をドラマチックに彩る旅とグルメと温泉図鑑》
https://ramenjapan.net/
★メロンシート《フラメンコギターの世界一の旅》
https://pordiotama3.xsrv.jp
★フラメンコロイド 《フラメンコロイドの神話と伝説》
https://flamenkoroid.net

—————《twitter》—————————————————————

★ロイドごはん
https://twitter.com/roidgohan
★メロンシート
https://twitter.com/meloncito310
★フラメンコロイド
https://twitter.com/flamenkoroid

—————《instagram》———————————————————-

★ロイドごはん
https://www.instagram.com/roidgohan
★メロンシート
https://www.instagram.com/satoshimelo...
★フラメンコロイド
https://www.instagram.com/flamenkoroid

名古屋の名物を食べ尽くす！愛知県名古屋市『鳥開総本家名駅西口店』に伺いました。「鳥開総本家」は名古屋を中心に展開する名古屋コーチンと親子丼が自慢のお店です。伺った「名駅西口店」は平成12年オープンの1号店。名古屋コーチンにこだわるお店の看板である名古屋名物の手羽先はからあげグランプリ手羽先部門金賞受賞！そのほか唐揚げも「からあげグランプリ最高金賞受賞」、名古屋コーチンの卵を使用した親子丼も「全国丼GP金賞受賞」するなどタイトルホルダーのメニューが揃います。これら人気メニューのほかお得なせんべろセットも注文してみましたので、よろしければぜひご参考に！それでは早速ご覧ください！

＊感染対策を徹底して撮影を行っています。
＊撮影に際しては、お店の方や周りのお客様に充分配慮して撮影をおこなっています。

Eat all Nagoya specialties! We visited "Torikai Sohonke Mei Station West Exit" in Nagoya City, Aichi Prefecture. "Torikai Sohonke" is a restaurant that boasts Nagoya Cochin and Oyakodon, which are mainly located in Nagoya. The "Meieki West Exit Store" I visited is the first store that opened in 2000. The Nagoya specialty chicken wings, which is the signboard of the shop that sticks to Nagoya Cochin, won the gold medal in the chicken wings category of the Karaage Grand Prix! In addition, there is a menu of title holders such as "Karaage Grand Prix Gold Award" for fried chicken and "National Bowl GP Gold Award" for Oyakodon using Nagoya Cochin eggs. I also ordered a great-value senbero set, so please refer to it if you like! Please have a look!
* We take thorough measures against infection.
*When shooting, we give due consideration to the shop and customers around us.


いつもありがとうございます！( ´ ▽ ` )
高評価＆チャンネル登録もよろしくお願いいたします！

#唐揚げ #親子丼 #ハイボール #ロイドごはん #フラメンコロイド

—————《サブチャンネルもよろしくお願いします！》—————————————

【メロンシートジャーニー】
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNlBAUziFWkJZFY_u3t65A

【フラメンコロイド】
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsFJHNg3SR41R2a3vctUInw


—————《本日の店舗情報》—————————————————

『鳥開総本家 名駅西口店』
https://www.google.co.jp/amp/s/s.tabelog.com/aichi/A2301/A230101/23002365/top_amp/

—————《ロイドごはんオススメの動画！　 ROIDGOHANs’ Recommended video》———————————

78才おじいちゃん屋台ラーメンの朝『幸っちゃん』夜明けの銀座【飯テロ】Old Style Ramen Stall Yatai Japanese Street Food
https://youtu.be/YHiWYvhxUI4

【家系ラーメン特集!】
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6yW17uB9uIVUmOS8qnXrRwcBu8W-uRYZ

神回【ラーメン二郎の貴重映像】全増しが出来るまで一部始終を大公開！【ラーメン二郎 ひばりヶ丘店】ramen
https://youtu.be/mBFcdMHyaxA


—————《オリジナルサイトの情報》—————————————————

★ロイドwalker《人生をドラマチックに彩る旅とグルメと温泉図鑑》
https://ramenjapan.net/
★メロンシート《フラメンコギターの世界一の旅》
https://pordiotama3.xsrv.jp
★フラメンコロイド 《フラメンコロイドの神話と伝説》
https://flamenkoroid.net

—————《twitter》—————————————————————

★ロイドごはん
https://twitter.com/roidgohan
★メロンシート
https://twitter.com/meloncito310
★フラメンコロイド
https://twitter.com/flamenkoroid

—————《instagram》———————————————————-

★ロイドごはん
https://www.instagram.com/roidgohan
★メロンシート
https://www.instagram.com/satoshimelo...
★フラメンコロイド
https://www.instagram.com/flamenkoroid