關於 virtual background for video ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

[在家工作WFH主題第二彈] – 挑個適合的虛擬背景吧

上週跟許多朋友聊了最近在家工作以及在家上課的情況，有發現多數人都慢慢已經轉到能夠幾乎線上作業，也都習慣用Zoom/Google Meet/Microsoft Teams 開會以及上課。

我們聊一聊後發現，線上與客戶/同事開會或上課，都會需要開相機，開了以後都發現家裡網路順暢的地方，背景可能很亂或不適合上課 (是的，上課時請爸爸們不要光著短褲在家裡亂走😅)。

⭐那這個時候就要在你的會議軟體裡挑個適合的虛擬背景！把你背後的人與雜亂都蓋掉，創造一個適合當下開會/上課的氛圍就需要不同的虛擬背景～

以下我收集了一些適合大人與小孩不同情境的免費虛擬背景給大家:

👉適合在家工作的背景 (要夠亮，有高度能量感，背景不雜亂，工作空間背景)
1. 大型工作空間 https://teamsbackground.net/microsoft-viva-backgrounds-teams-meetings/

2. 不同會議室空間 https://teamsbackground.net/office-workplace-and-couch-images/
3. 在家工作https://unsplash.com/t/work-from-home

👉適合在家上課/教課的背景 (多色彩，亮一點，吸引學生注意力的背景)
1. 多種風格 https://education.microsoft.com/en-us/resource/6eb1ef79

2. 幼幼班童趣風格 https://www.pbs.org/education/blog/doing-distance-learning-in-style-virtual-zoom-backgrounds-from-pbs-kids

3. 國高中風格 https://www.kapwing.com/resources/5-free-zoom-virtual-backgrounds-for-students/

👉適合輕鬆線上討論的背景 (減壓的空間，戶外風景，輕鬆溝通的背景)

1. 許多Airbnb看出去的美景https://news.airbnb.com/inside-looking-out-10-views-to-transport-you-outdoors/

2. IKEA居家背景 https://www.ikea.com.tw/zh/ikea-virtual-background

👉其他有趣的主題背景
1. 星際大戰 https://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-backgrounds

2. BBC名劇的佈景 https://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/empty_sets_science_fiction/zhj7mfr

3. Disney Pixar卡通佈景 https://news.disney.com/pixar-video-backgrounds-available

4. 法國Disney樂園佈景 https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2020/04/disneymagicmoments-add-disney-magic-to-online-video-chats-with-virtual-backgrounds/

在下次會議或上課之前，先設定好你虛擬背景，這樣不論上課上班多久都能創造出好的工作/學習氛圍！

#WFH #線上教學 #線上學習 #虛擬背景 #爸媽救星
#15mins ＃#通勤學英語

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”

【我親愛的Zoom視訊客人們】
To My Dear Zoom Clients

我忍了真的⋯⋯真的⋯⋯很久，今天過後實在忍無可忍，一定要叮嚀所有過去和未來的客人們。

我年紀很大了，受不了太大的刺激。

拜託，你們可以Zoom好來嗎？😓😑

一、Zoom視訊的視角 = 拍護照照的視角

護照自2020年起就已成為古董，但大家這一生應該有拍過證件照吧！

對了，就是要頭髮整齊，讓我看到你的雙耳、雙眼、鼻子、嘴巴、頸項和肩膀，到胸部。

我批八字時，需要看整個面相。不要讓你一半的臉掉出鏡頭外，這樣很像鍾無艷，也不要嘴巴不見掉，這樣我很像在跟一條羅漢魚視訊。

我看面相包括看你的嘴巴、牙齒和說話時的嘴形。是的，看相就是需要那麼仔細。

如果你的螢幕太低，那就找書本或舊報紙，把螢幕墊高一點。別讓我整一個小時半只看到你的雙下巴，會把你的面相比例給看錯。

不要一直告訴我不好意思，方法是人想出來的。

•

二、光線

太暗，我看你如見鬼。
太亮，我會看不清你的膚色。
拉開窗簾，不要背向陽光。
有必要的話，就直接開燈！

•

三、勿放什麼椰樹沙灘/金門大橋的虛擬背景圖

什麼虛擬背景圖都不要放啦～

我的家美最重要，我不在乎你的家美不美，我只是來看命的。

如果你的Wi-Fi不是很強，電腦功能不是很厲害，這類的虛擬背景圖會讓你的視訊畫面卡卡的。

有時你轉個身，整個右邊不見了，或部份的頭髮少了，讓我覺得我好像在看恐怖片，嚇人啊～

•

四、環境和聲音

有些海外客人其實非常用心。為了與我視訊，特別去買有麥克風的耳機🎧，讓我能更清楚的聽到他們的聲音。😍

沒有使用耳機和麥克風的客人，往往他們的聲音會有種空氣般的回音，如果他們本身講話又小聲，我的耳機聲量開滿，我還是聽得滿辛苦的

也有香港和馬來西亞客人租過會議室、鐘點房間或單人工作室，就是為了不受家人的干擾，能安心的與我視訊。😍

最有趣的是，去年新加坡阻斷措施時，有位男客人跑到屋外的走廊坐在地上與我視訊。只是外頭風聲有點大，我好幾次都聽不清楚他的聲音。

曾有客人在咖啡廳與我視訊。咖啡廳裡的高談闊論聲和器皿的敲擊聲，頻頻從我的耳機闖進我的耳朵，哇～我的耳朵那時真的是活受罪，還要裝一副氣定神閒的樣子。

天啊，兩次過後，我寧願退錢，也不再見這樣的客人了。耳朵只有一對，我要保護好啊！

在這裡聲明：一般我們買手機時的那種有麥克風的耳機，就已能視訊。沒有戴耳機和麥克風的客人，我一概會拒絕諮詢，把費用原銀奉還。

五、孩子

曾試過諮詢的前20分鐘，一直被女客人的小孩打擾，進來哭著要媽媽主持公道。

如果你家中有六歲以下的兒童，會時不時來敲你的門，我建議你還是先別約我。你這樣會分心，無法聽好我交代的事，而我也得一直等你去安撫你的孩子，就無法在限定時間內看完你的八字，這樣對誰都不公平。

六、我只見客人一人

這個規矩，從我一出道就定下來，也清楚的寫在網站上，根本不用一而再的來試探水溫。

但這兩個星期，還是有客人硬闖關，事先安排自己的配偶/孩子坐在電腦的另一面，要他們聽我講他的八字。

我從不改我的規矩，也沒有八字或風水是我非看不可的。

讀書這麼高，連自己的命都不能自己負責，這已經不是能改到命的人了。

你一定要你的配偶陪你聽，那你需要的不是我來教你改命，是你的配偶來安你的心。

將來若還有這樣的事，我會直接中斷視訊，把錢退回去。

七、「我第一次用Zoom！」

可是從報名那天到今天的諮詢，你有兩個月的時間去摸索。

兩個月，怎麼還是錯誤百出？因為客人根本沒有事先準備和練習。

結果我就這樣等了20分鐘，還得等對方下載軟件。

Zoom不難使用，但如果是你沒有花時間去摸索，就不要撒謊，直接說，我就直接退現錢。

品德是改命的資糧，不要為了自己能脫身就隨便編一個漏洞百出的謊，還說自己是好人。這...不會臉皮太厚了嗎？

小事都不願做好，絕對不會成大器。

八、暈車

有些客人用Ipad或手機來視訊。

重點是，他一支手拿著手機，一支手拿筆寫筆記。他一邊寫，另一支手就一邊搖晃。他做在床上，移動一下，手機就彷彿大海嘯幾下🌊

我一天如果見三個這樣客人，我的視線就搖晃了5個小時。工作完畢後，頭也會痛得厲害，無法完成晚上製片的工作。

沒有自拍器三腳架，也應該有些書本或東西來頂著手機。

各位，多點善心，為我著想一下吧⋯⋯

__________________________

To My Dear Zoom Clients

I have been enduring it for a really really long time. That's it! I am gonna put a stop to this after today and send out this reminder to all my past and future clients.

I am getting on in years, and cannot stand too much stimulation.

Please.... can you guys do a proper Zoom?

Number 1: Going on screen in Zoom = Taking a photograph for your passport.

Since 2020, the passport has become something of an antique but I believe everyone has taken some kind of ID photos! Yes, the ones with your neatly combed trusses where I can see both your ears, nose, mouth, neck, shoulder all the way to your chest.

I would like to see your full face during the Bazi Consultation. Please don't allow half your face to fall off the screen and you end up looking like Zhong Wu Yan! Please also don't hide your mouth making me feel like I am talking to a Arrowana.

When I analyze your facial features, it includes your mouth, teeth and the shape of your mouth while you are talking. Yes, it is down to such level of details.

If your PC / Laptop monitor is too low, please find a book or old newspapers and stack it on top. Please don't let me only see your double chin for that 1.5 hours, as I would probably get the proportion of your face wrong.

Don't keep telling me you are apologetic. Think of a way out.

Number 2: The background lighting.

Too dark, you risk looking like a ghost.

Too bright, I cannot figure out your skin color.

Draw open the curtains, but don't face your back to the sunlight.

If necessary, just turn on the lights!

Number 3: Background images of coconut trees on sandy beaches or the Golden Gate Bridge.

There is no need to put on a virtual background. I only care about how my hone looks, I am not bothered by yours. I am only here to see your Bazi.

If your WIFI signal or your PC / Laptop performance is poor, using the virtual background can often make your Zoom video choppy. Sometimes when you turn your body, one side of your body or some part of your hair will disappear. It's really like one of those spooky movies scaring the wits out of me.

•

Number 4: Background environment and noise.

Some of my overseas clients really put in effort for our Zoom sessions. They bought a headset with a mic so that I can hear them properly and vice versa.

Those that did not use a earphone or a headset often sounded echo-ish, and if they spoke softly, I would have to turn on the volume on my side full throttle and still have a hard time trying to hear them.

There are some clients from Hong Kong and Malaysia who would rent meeting rooms, hotel rooms or private work spaces by the hour so as to reduce any disturbance from others and better focus on the Zoom session with me.

I recalled an interesting incident during the Circuit Breaker last year. A client from Singapore Zoom-ed with me along the corridor outside his house. Most of the time, I was hearing the howling of the winds rather than his voice.

Some clients sat themselves in coffee places for our session. These places are often filled with loud chatters and the clanging of cups and plates, and my ears suffered terribly. Yet, I have to continue to be seen as composed and attentive.

Goodness me, after 2 of such experiences, I decided that I rather refund these clients and never see them again. I have only 1 pair of ears and I want to protect them at all costs!

A normal earpiece that comes with the purchase of a handphone is good enough for Zoom video calls. For clients who do not have a earpiece/headset and a mic, I would end the consultation and refund the monies.

•

Number 5: Children

There was once where a session with a female client was repeatedly disrupted by her kids, running in crying for their mother to settle their quarrels. If you have children below 6 years of age, and likely to interrupt our session, I suggest you don't book a consultation with me.

You will be distracted, unable to focus on my advice and I have to wait for you to clear up the situation with your children, eating into the allowable time for me to complete the consultation. This is unfair to both you and me.

•

Number 6: I only meet one person, that is the Client.

I have set this requirement the day I stepped into this line of work, and it is clearly written in my booking form. There is no need to try your luck under any circumstances.

But in the space of 2 weeks, there were some clients who rode their luck and got their spouse / child to sit on the other side of the screen to listen in on our consultation.

I never change my stance, and there is no single client that I cannot afford to lose.

If you insist to have your spouse sit in, it is apparent that you do not need me to help transform your destiny. Rather you really need your spouse to put your heart at ease.

If such things happen the next time, I will end the session immediately and refund the fees.

•

Number 7: "My first time using Zoom"

But you have 2 full months to prepare before our actual consultation. You did not end up wasting time exploring the software and I wasted 20 mins waiting for you to download the software.

Zoom is an easy software to use but if you did not spend the time to familiarize yourself with it, please quit the lies and tell me directly. I will refund the consultation fees on the spot.

Our moral ethics serve as the foundation for our transformation. Stop weaving web of lies to get out of sticky situations, and still claim that you are a good person. Isn't this too thick-skinned?

•

Number 8: Giddy spells

Some clients use Ipad or their handphones for the Zoom session. Crucially, they hold the device with one hand, and take notes with the other. As they write, the other hand holding the phone becomes shaky. If he is doing that on his bed, his handphone would shake like a tsunami wave every time he changes his position.

If I see 3 such clients within a day, it would be 5 hours of shaking visuals for me. That would mean a splitting headache at the end of my work day, and not being able to work on my videos at night.

Even if you don't have a tripod stand, at least prop up the device with a book or something.

Please everyone, please be kind and have mercy on me......

Quarantine Vlogs adalah vlog series aku selama aku social distancing PSBB 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
Day Twenty One https://youtu.be/zrXFWpCBngw
Day Twenty Two https://youtu.be/aq_GqZTi3mU
Day Twenty Three https://youtu.be/C1aOt3CRRfM
Day Twenty Four https://youtu.be/oiA1pcJclSw
Day Twenty Five https://youtu.be/G99-oWWdwJQ
Day Twenty Six https://youtu.be/wr4nwmLWNLc
Day Twenty Seven https://youtu.be/f1V1Jrq09qc
Day Twenty Eight https://youtu.be/YUtYZkwX9BE
Day Twenty Nine https://youtu.be/DGgNZ_Cdi0c
Day Thirty One https://youtu.be/15il1LSLDq0
Day Thirty Two https://youtu.be/m90RqH_QpY4

☆ P R O D U C T S
➫ Follow Secondate Beauty - https://www.instagram.com/secondatebe...
➫ Tori-Yo's Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/toriyo.id/

☆ S O C I A L M E D I A
Instagram:
https://instagram.com/titantyra
(check out my instafilters and gallery!)

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

Hi, my name is Ariel. If you’re new I make videos to spread the joy and memories. Today is the first day for university classes. I got offered to study semester 2 at the University of Queensland from high school. If anyone is curious, I am currently an undergraduate student doing a double degree which is Bachelor of Biomedical Sciences and Bachelor of science. So, if you're interested to know what my first day at university online went. Go ahead and watch this video and hope you enjoy it.
******************************************************************************
Background music: Music by ninjoi. - Passin [Thematic Exclusive] - https://thmatc.co/?l=FF3E2728
******************************************************************************
IG: ariely.hk.kn
Email: kpgirl37@gmail.com

Hi! Welcome back to my YouTube channel ?

Today gonna share a routine without using any equipment, just need a mat and a sofa/chair. This is a footage from my virtual workout class, so you’ll see me checking/talking to my laptop ?

It’s been 2 weeks since the first day I’m fasting, definitely my body already get used to it and this is why I increased the intensity a little more.

You’ll definitely sweat a lot like you see I did in the video and maybe struggle a little bit during those 30 minutes... but that’s alright! JUST DON’T QUIT!

//

No Equipment necessary and not much space needed. If you need more rest, TAKE THEM! Pause the video and take a rest. Don’t worry too much about that, you’ll improve over time ?

This video is in full length which means you can just follow whatever I’m doing 45s for each exercise.

//

Background music: https://youtu.be/cY9EQMD-vTE
@DJNoizeMusic



Disclaimer: Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.



Instagram: https://instagram.com/michellehuihui