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

#中央社外文新聞中心FocusTaiwan徵才 Focus Taiwan

中央社外文新聞中心誠徵全職【英文編輯】和【英文改稿顧問】，歡迎對英文新聞有熱情的你，加入FocusTaiwan團隊！

履歷請寄：cnafnc2@gmail.com
薪資：4萬以上，面議
福利：比照勞基法規定
上班時段：日班／晚班／假日班，需輪班
上班地點：台北市中山區松江路209號7樓
其他：通過第一階段履歷篩選者，我們會以email通知筆試時間。

【徵才職位】
🔵英文編輯Writer
語言能力：精通中、英文，英文聽說讀寫能力近母語。
學歷要求：大學以上畢業，新聞系、外文科系尤佳。
工作經驗：具有英文新聞工作至少1年經驗者優先考慮。
工作內容：英文編輯需將中文新聞編譯成英文新聞，並撰寫圖說、替英文影音新聞過音、製作圖表，並協助管理FocusTaiwan網站後台及社群媒體平台。
工作要求：英文編輯須具備求證與求知的精神，除了編譯中文稿之外，也願意花心思查證新聞訊息，包括做電話採訪，或是上官方網站查詢數據或資料，以充實稿子內容。通訊社的發稿步調快速，英文編輯必須在短時間內掌握新聞重點，以外國讀者感興趣的角度撰寫文章。

🔵英文改稿顧問Copy Editor
語言能力：精通中、英文。以英語為母語的（外籍）人士，通曉中文，居住台灣者優先考慮。
學歷要求：大學以上畢業，新聞科系尤佳。
工作經驗：具有英文新聞工作至少3年經驗者優先考慮。
工作內容：英文改稿顧問主要負責編審英文編輯的稿件，包括檢查文法、拼字、標點符號和文章結構等。改稿顧問也需編審每日新聞頭條、圖說新聞和影音稿。
工作要求：英文改稿顧問需熟悉中央社英文新聞寫作體例和頭條寫作規則，確保文章使用正確的文法、拼字和標點符號，結構完整、內容詳實和平衡。

A. Writer Position:
Requirements:
-- Native or near native English and Chinese proficiency
-- A bachelor’s degree or higher in journalism, foreign languages or a related field
-- Experience writing English news stories
-- Willing to work night shifts and on weekends
-- Able to work in a fast-paced newsroom and meet tight deadlines.
The job:
The writer will be assigned Chinese news stories by the shift leaders and are required to rewrite the stories in English.
He/she will also be asked to write captions, do voiceovers for videos, create graphics, and manage the FocusTaiwan website’s backend and social media accounts.
The writer will specifically be expected to:
-- Ensure that all news stories have proper structure, content, clarity, accuracy and balance
-- Research and fact-check the information in the Chinese news stories by sometimes making calls, conducting interviews, or sifting through official information on government websites

B.Copy Editor Position:
Requirements:
-- A bachelor’s degree or higher in journalism or a related field
-- A background in English news writing and editing, preferably with some experience editing the work of non-native English writers.
-- Native English speaker; Chinese language proficiency a plus
-- Able to function efficiently under time and deadline pressure
-- Willing to work late night shifts and on some weekends
-- Flexible with regard to work hours and days off
-- Able to work as a team with shift leaders and other copy editors to ensure quality content
The job:
The editor will be required to edit news stories in the English language department, checking the grammar, punctuation, and structure and making other changes where necessary.
He/she will also be asked to write and edit headlines for the news stories, edit captions, and occasionally check video scripts.
The copy editor will specifically be expected to:
-- Become familiar with the style rules of CNA, as well as with the rules and restrictions associated with headline writing.
-- Ensure that all news stories have proper grammar, punctuation, structure, content, clarity, accuracy and balance.
-- Answer questions by writers and shift leaders about style, grammar and other aspects of English news writing.

#國際影音串流平台徵才 6/28更新

文化部補助、中央社承辦的國際影音串流平台誠徵以下職位專業人才，有志者請依以下徵才內容需求附上所需資料與我們聯繫。
請注意：來函應徵時，請在電郵主旨欄註明應徵類別，例如「應徵D1 社群媒體內容製作人」、「應徵E3 網路平台技術主管」或「應徵E5 數據工程師」

履歷請寄： personnel-video@mail.cna.com.tw
薪資：4萬以上，面議
福利：均比照勞基法規定

【公司介紹】

Taiwan Plus (Taiwan+) 國際影音串流平台，是台灣第一個以全球為目標族群的全英語新聞、節目平台。

本平台希望在全球舞台上呈現台灣觀點與聲音，同時在國際社會中提升台灣的能見度與影響力。我們將提供與台灣相關，以及超越一般視野的新聞與節目。無論是與台灣相關議題或是區域情勢，以及台灣高舉的普世價值：民主、人權、開放、創新等等，我們都期待在該領域的全球對話中成為最具影響力媒體。

我們以全球為範圍尋覓專業人才，希望打造一支世界級水準的團隊。如果您是專長領域的頂尖人才，同時堅信台灣所代表的多重價值，希望促成改變，您將是Taiwan Plus需要的夥伴。

【徵才職位】

🔵 B1 節目製作人
工作內容：
網路影音節目企劃規劃統籌，能產製外國受眾感興趣的網路影音內容。
1. 節目預算規劃與成本管控。
2. 節目主題發想與設定、外部資源整合洽談。
3. 影音節目行銷及文字撰寫。
4. 透過數據分析及判讀，並與社群數據相關部門緊密合作
學歷要求：大學以上畢業，不限科系，大眾傳播相關科系尤佳。
工作經驗：具網路影音相關節目製作5年以上工作經驗，熟悉新媒體作業。
工作技能：Office文書軟體，了解後製剪接、轉檔、字幕、ES、音效、配樂、調色等工作流程。
語言能力：精通中、英文。
其他條件：1、對台灣題材具熱情，可協調完成節目前製、後製工作。
2、請提供先前製作之節目連結。

🔵 B2 編導人員
工作內容：
1、網路節目發想/拍攝/製作。
2、協助主視覺及鏡面效果包裝設計。
3、短片內容拍攝。
4、其他主管交辦事項。
學歷要求：大學以上畢業，大眾傳播相關科系尤佳。
工作經驗：具節目製作3年以上工作經驗、網路影片拍攝、非線性剪輯3年以上經驗。
工作技能：Office文書軟體、After Effect、Final Cut、Premiere，會3D軟體尤佳。
語言能力：精通國台語、英語中等以上。
其他條件：
1. 對台灣題材有興趣、可以獨立完成節目前製與後製工作。
2. 請提供3∼5分鐘自製的影音作品及連結。

🔵 B3 節目企畫
工作內容：
1. 影音節目相關版權及IP洽談業務
2. 影音節目採購標案撰寫、執行與驗收
3. 重製影音節目發想、洽談與流程管控
4. 自製網路影音節目發想、規劃與執行
5. 密切與社群部門溝通，以利節目內容產生有效的國際傳播
學歷要求：大專以上畢業，不限科系。
工作經驗： 具2年以上傳播行銷、節目授權、專案開發等相關工作經驗。
工作技能：Office文書軟體
語言能力：精通中、英文。
其他條件：熟悉著作權相關法律，具備採購專業人員基本資格或進階資格者尤佳

🔵 D1 社群媒體內容製作人
工作內容：
1. 經營Facebook、YouTube、Instagram、Twitter等社群平台，以及
Line、What’s App等等通訊軟體。負責所有社群活動，包括內容排程、社群管理，以及最佳化貼文使用者互動經驗與搜尋。
2. 發想與製作能夠引起高度共鳴的社群圖文，同時密切與內容產製部門合作，達成內容傳遞最佳效益，將台灣題材透過創意社群轉譯給國際觀眾。
3. 管理全站及跨平台數位內容產品，包括主網站與手機應用程式(APP)，主責新聞推播與電子報策略。
4. 監測互動與流量表現，並提出內容策略建議。
學歷要求：大學以上畢業，不限科系
工作經驗：具3年以上實際社群經營經驗（請提供相關工作經驗與成功案例）。
工作技能：具備影片、圖片製作思維與能力；社群平台數據分析、Google Analytics分析能力。
語言能力：精通中、英文。

🔵 E3 網路平台技術主管 Platform Technology Manager
工作內容：
1. 帶領並管理技術團隊，以充分掌握技術並達成產品開發或專案交付目標。
2. 依據專案需求，主導或協助專案管理。包含直接或協助專案經理帶領與管理技術團隊，能有效解決專案技術相關問題，確保專案如期如質交付。
3. 依據公司發展需求，負責建立開發技術團隊。內容包含人員面試、考核、技術帶領與管理等。
4. 針對新技術導入與知識管理需求，建立技術評估、技術分享辦法，協助團隊提升技術能力。
5. 其他主管交辦事項。
學歷要求：大學以上畢業，資訊或理工相關科系畢。
工作經驗：具備7年以上開發團隊主管經驗，5年以上C#、Python紮實技術基礎與開發經驗，具大型網路服務系統規畫建置經驗。
工作技能：熟悉C#/.net or Python/Django任一開發技術，熟悉AWS、GCP等雲端平台。具影音串流經驗尤佳。
語言能力：具備中等以上英語聽說讀寫能力。
其他條件：良好的溝通、團隊合作能力。

🔵 E4 DevOp工程師 DevOps Engineer
工作內容：
1. 負責內外部系統發佈、部署、調優、監控、日誌等系統和流程的維護和優化，確保系統的高可用性。
2. 負責雲端系統執行環境的建置與維護。
3. 負責突發問題處理並進行定位和處理。
4. 探索新的運維技術方向。
5. 其它主管交辦事項。
學歷要求：大學以上畢業，理工相關科系畢。
工作經驗：3年以上系統、應用運維經驗。
工作技能：熟悉linux系統，瞭解網路基本技術，熟悉TCP/IP協定原理，具AWS、GCP等雲端平台與服務維運經驗。熟悉網路安全者佳。
其他條件：良好的溝通、團隊合作、獨立作業的能力。

🔵 E5 數據工程師 Data Engineer
工作內容：
1. 執行資料處理、資料分析以及data lake、data mart的建立與維護。
2. 使用BI工具建立報表分析及數據探勘。
3. 因應業務需求，持續優化資料平台架構。
學歷要求：大學以上畢業，資訊或理工相關科系畢。
工作經驗：具備專案管理經驗，熟悉Agile軟體開發流程者佳。
工作技能：熟悉Python 或 Java，熟悉 Power BI或其他BI軟體工具，熟悉SQL。具數據分析與統計經驗。熟悉GCP者佳。
語言能力：具備基本英語溝通能力。
其他條件：良好的溝通協調能力。

🔵 E6 資訊安全暨系統維護主管 Information Security & System Maintenance Manager
工作內容：
1. 統籌公司內部資訊相關系統整合、部署、營運及維護 。
2. 確保資訊設備的可用性，因應公司營運發展所需改善現有資訊系統並預先規劃所需資源。
3. 機房規畫及運營。
4. 規劃辦公室網路環境。
5. 訂立資訊體制，改善資訊安全規範，落實資訊安全控管機制。
6. 定期對資訊風險進行評估以合乎公司安全策略及必要法規（包含ISO），確保系統運營的持續性與可回復。
7. 協助主管其他資訊專案推動。
學歷要求：大學以上畢業，資訊或理工相關科系畢。
工作經驗：7年以上資訊領域工作經驗，具資安經驗者佳。
工作技能：具軟體或平台開發經驗。具備資安相關證照者佳，具有導入ISO經驗者佳。
語言能力：具備中等英語聽說讀寫能力。
其他條件：良好的溝通協調能力。

🔵 E7 資訊安全主管 Information Security Lead
工作內容：
1. 帶領資安團隊、規劃與推動整體資安之目標與計畫。
2. 規劃/制定/執行整體資安治理流程管理。
3. 認證、稽核協調與管理。
4. 資安情資收集與資安事件應變處理。
5. 服務平台資安檢測、諮詢，與規範，持續強化系統資訊安全強度。
6. 辦公室資訊安全防禦建置與監控。
7. 研究與採購建置資安產品。
8. 對內對外資訊安全教育訓練規劃與推動。
學歷要求：大學以上畢業，資訊或理工相關科系畢。
工作經驗：3年以上資安工作經驗，具資安主管經驗者佳。
工作技能：具有AWS、GCP 等雲端環境經驗。具備OSCP,CEH等資安相關證照者佳。具有導入 ISO 經驗者佳。
語言能力：具備中等英語聽說讀寫能力。
其他條件：良好的溝通協調能力。

🔵 E8 資安工程師 Information Security Engineer
工作內容：
1. 協助資訊安全專案執行與維護工作。
2. 資訊安全解決方案(資安系統)專案規劃及建置、維護。
3. 週期性確認相關紀錄(Log)，確認相關控制措施有效。
4. 研究資訊安全技術，如重大系統漏洞或惡意程式。
學歷要求：專科或大學以上，理工相關科系畢。
工作經驗：2年以上系統、應用開發或運營經驗。
工作技能：熟悉linux、windows系統，瞭解網路基本技術。具AWS等雲端平台與服務經驗者佳。具備OSCP,CEH等資案相關證照者佳。
其他條件：良好的溝通能力。

🔵 E9 網路暨維護主管/工程師 Network & System Maintenance Lead / Engineer
工作內容：
1. 負責公司與IDC 網路之規劃、建置、管理及維護。
2. 網路設備安裝、設定、管理及維護等。
3. 與分析網路資料傳輸與網路安全架構等特性，以設計、發展及維護網際網路系統之正常運作。
4. 網路解決方案研究與導入。
5. 網路系統進行監控與告警處理。
6. 一般告警處理流程、重大網路障礙排除。工作內容：
7. 機房監控、管理與一般障礙排除與處理。
8. 協助公司其他單位，提供相關的系統操作與技術支援。包含一般員工以及影音編輯人員的電腦故障排除，軟體安裝、設定、系統操作等。
9. 對突發狀況的緊急應變處理。
學歷要求：專科或大學以上，理工相關科系畢。
工作經驗：網管工作2年以上相關經驗。
工作技能：熟悉linux、windows系統。了解OSI架構、HTTP、TCP/IP、DNS、SMTP、CDN。具備Load-balancer/ Firewall/ Switch操作
經驗。具備CCNA優先考慮。
其他條件：能配合公司輪班制度者優先考慮。

🔵 E10 產品管理師
工作內容：
1. 負責OTT影音平台相關的產品功能設計、UI/UX設計。
2. 內部使用單位訪談及需求分析，協助提供內容部門產品端的解決方案。
3. 撰寫商業需求文件及負責產品UAT，執行產品功能上線前驗收測試。
4. 持續優化平台功能與使用者體驗。
學歷要求：大學以上畢業。
工作經驗：具備3年以上網路服務或者to-c系統運營經驗，對產品設計流程和解決問題抱有高度熱情及興趣。
工作技能：熟悉Web、App開發流程。具備專案管理方法以及流程設計的經驗。具UX思維規劃功能，改善使用者體驗。
語言能力：具備基本英語溝通能力。
其他條件：良好的溝通協調能力，個性耐心且細心者為佳。

🔵 E11 軟體開發主管 Software Development Lead
工作內容：
1. 負責影音平台網站、後台與API等相關功能開發。
2. 負責優化與維護既有網站與後台功能。
學歷要求：大學或專科以上畢業，理工相關科系畢。
工作經驗：具備5年以上C#.NET or Python開發經驗。具人員管理經驗。
工作經驗：
1. 具備5年以上C#.NET or Python開發經驗。
2. 具人員管理經驗。
工作技能：
1. http://xn--pcu439a.net/.net core 或 Django、Flask framework。
2. 熟悉JavaScript/CSS/HTML5。
3. 熟悉mySQL、PostgreSQL與mongo DB。
4. 熟悉版控軟體，如Git。
5. 熟悉CI/DC流程。
6. 熟悉Vue.js或React者佳。
其他條件：工作認真仔細，具良好的溝通、團隊合作、獨立作業的能力。

🔵 E12 軟體開發工程師 Software Development Engineer
工作內容：
1. 負責影音平台網站、後台與會員中心等相關功能開發。
2. 負責優化與維護既有網站與後台功能。
學歷要求：大學或專科以上畢業，理工相關科系畢。
工作經驗：具備3年以上C#.NET or Python開發經驗。
工作技能：
1. http://xn--pcu439a.net/.net core 或 Django、Flask framework。
2. 熟悉JavaScript/CSS/HTML5。
3. 熟悉mySQL、PostgreSQL與mongo DB。
4. 熟悉Vue.js或React者佳。
其他條件：工作認真仔細，具良好的溝通、團隊合作、獨立作業的能力。

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”

以前會喺讀者投稿前面加上自己嘅意見，今次等大家睇完先，後尾我再講。

＝＝＝＝＝

讀者投稿：Martin1981

我自己開舖頭，普通小生意老細，員工都係得幾個，不過平平穩穩總算做咗6年。

未開舖之前我都係打工，當時發覺求職網雖然有好多招聘廣告，但好多工都唔關我事，因為冇大學畢業，有啲工即使再感興趣，亦明知道可以勝任，偏偏就因為學歷而apply唔到。

細個咩唔識死，走咗去買偽造嗰啲畢業證書，唔係淘寶，我係去ebay買，仲畀我搵到一個seller好專業，鬼佬嚟嘅，成套咁賣一set兩份，一份係科目成績表，一份係畢業證書，真係有火漆印嗰種，我仲可以揀讀邊科、幾時畢業、邊間英國大學畢業，咁當然冇揀牛津劍橋啦，唔需要吹到咁大，只係要張入場券搵工啫。

呢套ebay買返嚟嘅假畢業證書點可能呃到人？你諗緊嘅嘢，同我當初嘅顧慮一樣，每當對方問我拎工作同埋學歷證明去影印，我個心都跳得好快，好驚畀人發現。

我用假學歷前後搵到兩份office工，返工之後就更加覺得諷刺，身邊雖然係大學生，不過做嘢唔覺特別叻，甚至英文都唔係特別好，我中五都流利過佢。有啲所謂大學畢業嘅同事連待人接物都好差，咁樣講唔係要貶低讀過大學嘅人，我都見過某啲大學生同事真係好掂，談吐舉止淡定，我只係想表達，一個人做嘢叻唔叻？有冇責任感？有幾多見識？係好人定係人渣？同學歷可以完全無關，起碼喺能力同埋工作表現方面，同我呢個中五畢業嘅人冇明顯差距。

直至我再用假學歷去轉另一份好鍾意嘅工。

之前兩間公司規模唔大，後來我搵到一份環境再好啲，人工再高啲，不過返咗一個星期左右，HR走嚟問我：「唔好意思，因為我哋send咗email去check，你間大學話冇呢個學生，你當時係咪用其他名？同埋成績表個student number都check唔到，或者你有冇當時啲學生證畀一畀我？純粹send返去校方嗰邊確認。」

HR好好人，我感覺到佢唔係從懷疑角度出發，係真心想幫我解決件事，呢啲亦係外國head office定落嘅規矩，不過我真係太驚喇，之前兩份工嘅reference check只係搵舊公司問嘢，從來冇check學歷。

其實我好鍾意呢份工......

隔咗一日，我同HR辭職，作咗個故仔話有更好offer，本身都考慮緊，既然最後要轉工，所以就唔特別再畀咩學生證佢喇，免得佢百忙一場。

我好記得HR、部門經理、自己team同事，仲有隔離team同事都不斷留我，話我做得好地地不如留低。雖然只係返咗幾日，但佢哋個個都好nice，日日同佢哋成班人食lunch，有一日仲撞正某同事生日，大家買埋蛋糕返office慶祝，我好唔捨得呢間公司，不過再留低就要延續check學歷呢件事，偽造虛假文書係犯法，真係唔走唔得。

除咗識於微時嘅朋友之外，工作後認識嘅所有人如果問起，我都會話自己喺英國讀完大學，如果對方唔問就當然唔會特別提，我都分唔清係想呃埋自己，抑或怕走漏風聲，只係撞正有啲都係從英國讀書返嚟嘅人，每當講起當地生活、趣事、宿舍......我都只能夠支吾以對，因為根本就未去過。

雖然check學歷單嘢最後隨住我resign而冇後續，但心理陰影好大，始終係犯法同埋虧心事，驚上得山多終遇虎，結果我用之前做嘢嘅積蓄開咗間舖，勉勉強強做得住，不過呢半年受疫情影響，生意無可避免差咗好多，再係咁落去，舖頭應該撐唔過2020年，我好唔想再出去再搵工，但如果真係要行呢一步，我會用返中五畢業嘅學歷，唔想再提心吊膽。

搵個樹窿呻完，多謝有你呢個地方，因為咁唔光彩嘅秘密，連我老婆都唔知，佢係我以前一份工嘅同事，佢都以為我係大學生，而其實學歷問題係我人生最大嘅遺憾。

＝＝＝＝＝＝

睇完之後，首先我想分享下以前做HR同埋Headhunt嘅經驗。

做HR嘅時候，我嗰間的確唔係咩大公司，大約120人左右，公司冇要求喺學歷方面要check，反而老細較著重candidate舊公司嘅reference check，而我都知道好多規模唔大嘅公司，雖然請人嗰陣都有學歷要求，但education background check嘅情況並唔多，亦相信有人曾經用過投稿讀者嘅方法搵工。

至於Headhunt公司方面，印象中只有做過幾次education background check，因為大公司通常由佢哋HR自己做返，甚至係再外判出去搵其他機構做。

無論你apply嘅公司check定係唔check，又或者用咩方式去check，偽造文書的確係好大件事，唔好以身試法，搵份工啫，得不償失惹埋官非就好唔抵，無謂心驚膽顫。

「Martin1981 」選擇分享呢件事出嚟，表明係自己嘅遺憾，聽得出佢後悔同埋耿耿於懷，但由於有顧忌而冇留低聯絡方法，我唔知道當中更多細節，喺度順便再講多少少。其實我遇過好多candidate，當中一部分都唔係大學畢業，亦有好多係因為唔同嘅原因，令到當時冇直接讀大學，要做咗好耐嘢先再讀返。

我唔否認好多公司嘅職位或者工作內容根本唔需要大學畢業，而學歷同工作能力亦未必成正比，呢樣我完全明白，不過唔止香港，好多地方都係一樣，畢業證書就係一張入場劵，如果「Martin1981 」已經穩定咗落嚟，不妨選擇再進修，去讀返個學位返嚟絕對唔遲，我了解你諗咩，之前已經有自己生意，又咁大個人喇，而家先走嚟讀書似乎太遲。

進修係為自己，永遠唔會遲，繼續諗落去而冇行動先叫做遲。我唔知你幾多歲，其實三十幾四十歲先再進修大有人在，始終嚟緊嘅路冇人知道會點，希望你好好裝備自己，唔好再用假學歷去搵工喇，有人嘅學歷同工作能力不成正比係佢哋嘅事，最重要係自己心安理得，祝一切安好。

《Sun Dance》
Monochrome Syndrome
作詞：Aimerrhythm
作曲：飛内将大
編曲：玉井健二、飛内将大
歌：Aimer
翻譯：澄野
意譯：CH

版權聲明:
本頻道不握有任何音樂所有權，亦無任何營利，一切僅為推廣用途。音樂所有權歸原始創作者所有。請支持正版。

Copyright Info:
Be aware this channel is for promotion purpose only without any illegal profit. All music's ownership belongs to the original creators.
Please support the original creator.

すべての権利は正当な所有者/作成者に帰属します。あなたがこの音楽（または画像）の作成者で、この動画に使用されたくない場合はメッセージまたはこのYoutubeチャンネルの概要のメールアドレスにご連絡ください。私はすぐに削除します。

如果你喜歡我的影片，不妨按下喜歡和訂閱，你的支持就是我創作的最大原動力！
If you like my videos, please click like and subscribe! Thx :)

粉絲團隨時獲得最新訊息！
https://www.facebook.com/chschannel/

Check my Facebook page for more information!
https://www.facebook.com/chschannel/

背景 / Background - 告白 - アシマ:
https://www.pixiv.net/artworks/66122534

翻譯連結 / Referenced Translation :
https://home.gamer.com.tw/creationDetail.php?sn=4672083

日文歌詞 / Japanese Lyrics :
映画で見た様なシーン　素敵なストーリー
もう少しくらい期待させて　What’s going on?
引いたり押したりして　筋書き通り
もどかしくて　Boy meets girl　なんて　What’s wrong?

Manual Step 1　”Step up!”
君の近くで見えるように
それから　Step back? Standard なんて意味がないよね

Can you hear my heartbeat singing to your heart?
Ding dong って鳴らすよ　すぐにね
Monochrome な夜をすり抜けて　I know where we should be going
Can’t you see now? It’s easy to give in to your heart
連れ出して見せてよ　その手で
白か黒かなんて気にしない　曖昧っていう色をつけて

背伸びをして見ていたモノクロ映画
もう少しくらい白黒つけた？　What’s going on?
ダンスも踊れなくて　筋書き通り？
もしかしてさ　Girl meets boy　かもね？　What’s wrong?

迷わず　”Step up!”
Step up　甘い香りのしている方に
思わず Step back? Standard なんて柄じゃないのに

Can you feel me? My belief leading with your heart
手を取ってみせてよ　すぐにね
Syndrome な恋はきまぐれと　I don’t care where this is going
Can’t you see now? It’s easy to give in to your heart
いつだって曖昧な二人は　白が黒で　黒が白になる
愛の Flavor　漂わせて

Take a red-eye flight
Good-bye the days of blue
Now the yellow light giving warning turns to the green colors!

Can you hear my heartbeat singing to your heart?
Ding dong って鳴らすよ　すぐにね
Monochrome な夜をすり抜けて　I know where we should be going
Can’t you see now? It’s easy to give in to your heart
いつだって曖昧な二人は　白が黒で　黒が白になる
愛の Flavor　色をつけて

中文歌詞 / Chinese Lyrics :
就像電影裡的那一幕般，讓人回味無窮的故事
怎麼不也多讓我期待些呢？「到底是怎樣啊？」
心態一下膽怯又一下強硬，僅是照著循常平凡的劇本
心癢癢的，究竟那些男女相遇什麼的究竟是怎麼回事？

指南步驟一：「勇敢站出來！」
直到能夠在你身旁看著你
然後呢？撤退嗎？「盲目跟從這樣的行為準則根本沒有意義吧！？」

你能否聽見我無法按耐的感情遞入你內心的歌聲？
叮噹的響徹著，我想就快了吧
穿越單調乏味的黑白夜色「我知道我們該去哪了！」
你難道看不見嗎？令我對你的心屈服投降有多麼容易
就用你的雙手，帶我闖蕩外面的廣闊世界吧！
不論是白是黑我都不在意，只期盼能抹上些「曖昧」的顏色

長大之後看的黑白電影
總感覺已經變得更灰白黯淡了些許？怎麼會這樣？
也沒辦法再像往昔一樣跳著舞了，還要照著循常的劇本嗎？
難道是要等到女孩主動出擊？真的沒問題嗎？

不要停下「勇敢站出來！」
站出來！快朝有著香水芳香的方向前進
果然還是不禁退縮？「盲目的跟從他人指引根本就不適合你！」

你能感受到嗎？我是全心全意地深信著你
快一點牽起我的手吧！
如戀愛症候群般捉摸不清「我才不管之後會怎麼樣呢！」
你難道不知道嗎？令我對你的心屈服投降有多麼容易
一直以來都處於曖昧的兩人，感情色彩白似黑、黑卻又轉變為白
就盡情揮灑、沾染上愛的風味吧！　

迫不及待的乘上紅眼航班
再會了，從前的陰鬱過往
曾幾何時內心閃爍警訊的黃燈也早已轉變為綠

你能否聽見我無法按耐的感情遞入你內心的歌聲？
叮噹的響徹著，我想就快了吧
穿越單調乏味的黑白夜色「我知道我們的目的地在哪了！」
你難道不知道嗎？令我對你的心屈服投降有多麼容易
一直以來都處於曖昧的兩人，感情色彩白似黑、黑卻又轉化為白
「就這麼用愛的風味添染上大片斑斕色彩吧！」

這次來菲律賓遇到了五個國家的學生，
藉著這個機會，我問了他們幾個有關菲律賓遊學的問題。
還在猶豫要不要來這邊念書的朋友們快來聽聽看他們說了些什麼吧😉
-
I’ve met some students who are from 5 different countries in the Philippines this time.
By this chance, I asked them some questions about Philippines Study Tour.
Check this video out if you are considering to come here to study ENG.💙
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

SOCIALS
►YouTube｜https://goo.gl/W86T7V
►Instagram｜https://www.instagram.com/weizeng.1011/

＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

合作邀約 Business Inquiries
► dynowei957@gmail.com

＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

Background Music
►Dj Quads - Fun Time

＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

Gears
►Camera｜Sony A7III/Gopro Hero7
►Microphone｜Rode VideoMic
►Drone｜Mavic 2 Zoom

《Sun Dance》
We Two
作詞：Aimerrhythm
作曲：飛内将大
編曲：玉井健二．飛内将大
歌：Aimer
翻譯：澄野
意譯：CH

版權聲明:
本頻道不握有任何音樂所有權，亦無任何營利，一切僅為推廣用途。音樂所有權歸原始創作者所有。請支持正版。

Copyright Info:
Be aware this channel is for promotion purpose only without any illegal profit. All music's ownership belongs to the original creators.
Please support the original creator.

すべての権利は正当な所有者/作成者に帰属します。あなたがこの音楽（または画像）の作成者で、この動画に使用されたくない場合はメッセージまたはこのYoutubeチャンネルの概要のメールアドレスにご連絡ください。私はすぐに削除します。

如果你喜歡我的影片，不妨按下喜歡和訂閱，你的支持就是我創作的最大原動力！
If you like my videos, please click like and subscribe! Thx :)

粉絲團隨時獲得最新訊息！
https://www.facebook.com/chschannel/

Check my Facebook page for more information!
https://www.facebook.com/chschannel/

背景 / Background - ねぇ、行こう - 成瀬ちさと:
https://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?mode=medium&illust_id=67655421


翻譯連結 / Referenced Translation :
https://home.gamer.com.tw/creationDetail.php?sn=4480159

日文歌詞 / Japanese Lyrics :
We don't need, we don't get the things in order
No time to waste　そうきっと
右へ　左へ turn, turning over
No side　でもういいよね？


Make a noise and louder
そのセリフは柄じゃないけど　いいや
We will find out　飽きがくるまで 朝が来るまで all right


We cool! What a cool sound!
目を閉じて鳴らすの the good song
We fool! What a fool dance!
手を取って踊るよ anyone can't stop
We two, melody loops　とびきりのセンスで
Give me your sound to dance


We don't need, we don't get the things in order
No time to waste　そうきっと
西へ　東へ　手の鳴るほうへ
No side でもういいよね？


ずっと響くナンバー
その名前は忘れてるけど　いいや
We will find out? I can't tell the end 朝が来るまで all right


We cool! What a cool sound!
目を閉じて鳴らすの the good song
We fool! What a fool dance!
手を取って踊るよ anyone can't stop
We two, melody first　意味なんてないよね
君の sound to dance


Make a noise and louder
そのセリフは柄じゃないけど　いいや
We will find out　飽きがくるまで 朝が来るまで all right


We cool! What a cool sound!
目を閉じて鳴らすの the good song
We fool! What a fool dance!
手を取って踊るよ anyone can't stop
We two, melody loops　とびきりのセンスで
Give me your sound to dance

中文歌詞 / Chinese Lyrics :
我們從不、從不需要做事井然有序
早已沒時間可浪費，一秒鐘也沒有！
不論是向左或是向右移動翻轉
就算沒有方向也行吧？


「再大聲點，就算發出躁雜的聲響也無妨！」
雖然這一句話並不像是我會說的，算啦
我們將持續尋覓目標，直到我們都厭煩為止、直到太陽升起為止，沒問題的！


我們比誰都厲害！種種聲響多麼美妙！
猶如閉上眼敲醒一切的曼妙歌曲
宛若笨蛋一般，跳起笨拙的舞蹈吧！
牽起彼此的手起舞吧！不論任何人都不再停下腳步
你我一同令歌曲放肆循環，帶著絕佳的體驗放肆迴轉
就讓我伴隨你的聲音起舞吧！


我們從不、從不需要做事井然有序
早已沒時間可浪費，一秒鐘也沒有！
不論是向西還是向東，只要朝著手與手的掌聲前進
就算沒有方向也行吧？


一直在腦中反覆迴響聽見的數字
雖然早就已經忘記那名字了，算啦
我們能否再次憶起呢？我也說不上答案，但直到太陽升起之前，沒問題的！


我們比誰都厲害！種種聲響多麼美妙！
猶如閉上眼敲醒一切的曼妙歌曲
宛若笨蛋一般，跳起笨拙的舞蹈吧！
牽起彼此的手起舞吧！不論任何人都不再停下腳步
即便只有兩人，也讓旋律優先，也許並不需要任何意義吧？
就這麼讓你的聲音一同翩翩起舞


「再大聲點，就算發出躁雜的聲響也無妨！」
雖然這一句話並不像是我會說的，算啦
我們將持續尋覓目標，直到我們都厭煩為止、直到太陽升起為止，沒問題的！


我們比誰都厲害！種種聲響多麼美妙！
猶如閉上眼敲醒一切的曼妙歌曲
宛若笨蛋一般，跳起笨拙的舞蹈吧！
牽起彼此的手起舞吧！不論任何人都不再停下腳步
你我一同令歌曲放肆循環，帶著絕佳的體驗盡情迴轉
就讓我伴隨你的聲音起舞吧！