關於 first date meaning ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

跟著怡琳看世界 37

The world’s tallest observation wheel is opening in Dubai next month
世界最高的觀景摩天輪下個月將在杜拜開放

metropolitan 大都市的
skyline 天際線
anticipate 預期/期望
cabin 座艙
rotation 旋轉一圈
fruition 完成

Ferris wheels were once the center of the town fair. Now they are key parts of major metropolitan skylines. But none can top the heights of the Ain Dubai — meaning “Dubai Eye” in Arabic — which is scheduled to open on Oct. 21. At more than 250 meters, Ain Dubai is 82 meters higher than the current world's tallest ferris wheel in operation, the High Roller in Las Vegas. It is almost twice the size of the London Eye.
摩天輪曾經是市集的中心。現在，它們是主要大都市天際線的關鍵部分。但沒有一個能超越預計在10月21日開幕的艾因杜拜-阿拉伯語義中為'杜拜之眼'-的高度。杜拜之眼高250多公尺，比目前世界運行中的最高摩天輪，拉斯維加斯的豪客摩天輪高82公尺。它幾乎是倫敦眼的兩倍。

First announced in February 2013, Ain Dubai has taken more than eight years to complete. Construction began in May 2015, with an anticipated completion date of early to mid-2019. That date was later pushed to October 20, 2020, which was then pushed back another year when Expo 2020 was delayed by a year due to the pandemic.
杜拜之眼於2013年2月首次對外發布，歷時超過8年完工。2015年5月開始施工，原本預計2019年初到年中完工。但完工日期被延後到2020年10月20日，結果又因為大流行病導致2020年世博會被推遲，再往後延一年。

The structure has 48 enclosed cabins, some of which can fit up to 40 passengers. In total, 1,750 people can ride at the same time, according to the attraction.
這個摩天輪有48個封閉式座艙，其中有一些座艙可以容納40名乘客。根據景點的統計，總共有1750人可以同時乘坐。

There are three different types of cabin to take in the 38-minute rotation: observation cabins (the standard option), social cabins (these are the "VIP" option and have a bar in the center of the pod) and private cabins, which can be booked out for special occasions and include the option of a private three-course dinner over two rotations of the wheel.
在38分鐘的旋轉中，有三種不同類型的座艙可供選擇:觀景座艙(標準型)，社交座艙(這些是VIP型並且在座艙中央有酒吧)和私人座艙，可以依照特殊場合預訂，包含可以選擇在摩天輪旋轉兩圈時享用三道菜的晚餐。

Bringing all of this to fruition has meant pulling in expertise from all corners of the globe -- consultants from the UAE, South Korea, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, France and Italy all contributed to key aspects of the design.
這一切的實現，意味著從世界各地引進專業技能-來自阿聯酋、韓國、德國、英國、荷蘭、法國及義大利的顧問，都為設計的關鍵層面做出貢獻。

資料來源
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/14/ain-dubai-the-worlds-largest-observation-wheel-is-opening-in-dubai.html
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ain-dubai-worlds-largest-observation-wheel/index.html

臺灣的戒嚴時期，還是在1996年政府決定鎮壓幾個團體的時候，還是在中國大陸，當局不認可的宗教和心靈團體都被貼上了 #邪教 的標籤。這個說法在英文中常被翻譯成 “cult(異端的宗教信仰或崇拜)”，或 “xie jiao(邪教)”，但翻譯並不準確，而且有些不合時宜。
　　　
There is, however, another possibility. Both in Taiwan, during the Martial Law period and when the government decided to crack down on several groups in 1996, and in Mainland China, religious and spiritual movements the authorities do not approve of are labeled xie jiao. The expression is often translated in English as “cults,” or “evil cults,” but the translation is not precise and somewhat anachronistic.
　
倫敦大學研究員吳俊卿發表了多篇關於邪教概念歷史的研究，包括《曼達林與異端》（Leiden：Brill，2017）一書。其他學者將邪教作為一個政治和法律範疇可以追溯到明代，而吳曉波則表明，它最早出現在 #唐代 要求消滅佛教的傅毅（554-639）的著作中，具有 “異教 “的含義。此後的宋（960-1279年）、元（1279-1368年）兩朝，則以「白蓮教」為 #共同標籤，呼籲消滅被禁止的新宗教運動。到了明朝（1368-1644年），邪教成為一個法律概念，並開始編制邪教名單，清朝（1644-1912年）、民國、共產黨都延續了這一做法，也影響了臺灣。
　　
Wu Junqing, a research fellow at London University, has published several studies on the history of the notion of xie jiao, including the book Mandarins and Heretics (Leiden: Brill, 2017). While other scholars date the introduction of xie jiao as a political and legal category to the Ming era, Wu shows that it first appeared, with the meaning of “heterodox teachings,” in the writings of Fu Yi (554–639), who called for the eradication of Buddhism during the Tang dynasty. In the subsequent Song (960–1279) and Yuan (1279–1368) dynasties, xie jiao was used to call for the destruction of new religious movements banned under the common label of “White Lotus.” With the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), xie jiao became a legal concept, and lists of xie jiao started being compiled, a practice continued by the Qing dynasty (1644–1912), Republican, and Communist China, and which also influenced Taiwan.
　　　　　
https://act1219.org/raising-goblins-a-bizarre-accusation-against-asian-spiritual-minorities/

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”

★「大門弥生 "まけんな" DANCE WS TOUR 2020」★
新曲発売記念して大阪、東京、神奈川での開催に加え、遠方の為にも来れない方の為に、初の"オンラインWS"も開催決定！！「歌って踊れる＆シンガーのバックダンサー」としての基礎など大門弥生だからこそ教えれる内容が盛り沢山。あまりないこの機会に是非ご参加下さい。
Schedule：
11/7 (Sat) 大阪 OSAKA
11/8 (Sun) Online
11/13 (Fri) Online
11/14 (Sat) 神奈川 KANAGAWA
11/15 (Sun) 東京 TOKYO
(※他の地域もブッキングお待ちしてます。)

（（詳細））
■11/7 (SAT) 大阪 at WREXX Ast
19:00 - 20:30
¥3,700- (Special Shooting有り）
WSでPick UpされたメンバーはプロのカメラマンさんとのShootingあり！
『予約』studiodeanca@gmail.comまで
題名に”YAYOI DAIMON WS”
・氏名・電話番号・メールアドレスを記入してメール送信でエントリー完了。
（エントリー後のキャンセルはキャンセル料として全額を負担いただきます。）
問合せ先：インスタグラム @studio_deanca
—————————————

■11/8 (SUN) Online WS
日本時間（JST） 11am - 12:30am
（１時間レッスン＋質問タイム３０分）
¥2,500-
LA 7pm - 8:30pm
NY 9pm - 11:30pm
SanPaulo 11pm - 12:30pm
『予約方法』officeschwaza@gmail.comまで
題名に”YAYOI DAIMON WS”
・氏名
・希望受講日
・電話番号
・メールアドレス
を記入してメール送信でエントリー完了。
★エントリー後、振込先など詳細をこちらより送らせていただきます。
★振り込み完了確認後、”Zoom Online レッスン”のパスワードが送信されます。
★（振込後のキャンセルはキャンセル料として全額を負担いただきます。）
問合せ先：インスタグラム @yayoidaimon.info
『How to reservation』
Send e-mail to
officeschwaza@gmail.com
Put subtitle ”YAYOI DAIMON WS”
・Name
・Date
・Phone Number
・email address
After entry, we will send you details such as transfer destination.
After confirming the transfer completion, the password for "Zoom Online Lesson" will be sent.
(Cancellation after transfer will be charged in full as a cancellation fee.)
Q&A：Instagram @yayoidaimon.info
————————————

■11/13 (FRI) Online WS
日本時間（JST） 21:00 - 22:30
（１時間レッスン＋質問タイム３０分）
¥2,500-
London 1pm - 2:30pm
Paris 2pm -3:30pm
Beijing 8pm - 9:30pm
Seoul 9pm -10:30pm
『予約方法』
officeschwaza@gmail.com
まで
題名に”YAYOI DAIMON WS”
・氏名
・希望受講日
・電話番号
・メールアドレス
を記入してメール送信でエントリー完了。
エントリー後、振込先など詳細をこちらより送らせていただき
振り込み完了確認後、”Zoom Online レッスン”のパスワードが送信されます。
（振込後のキャンセルはキャンセル料として全額を負担いただきます。）
問合せ先：インスタグラム @yayoidaimon.info
—————————————

■ 11/14 (SAT) 神奈川 at Studio Jel’aime
まけんなダンサーR!noのスタジオに参戦！
19:00 - 20:30
通常受講者　¥3,000-
Studio jel’aime 会員 ¥2,500-
—————————————

■ 11/15 (SUN) 東京 at Studio Major 9F
Pick UpされたメンバーはオフィシャルShootingあり！
WS最終日なので、この日限りの何かがあるかも。
16:00 - 17:30
￥3,000-
『予約方法』
officeschwaza@gmail.com
まで
題名に”YAYOI DAIMON WS”
・氏名
・希望受講日
・電話番号
・メールアドレス
を記入してメール送信でエントリー完了。
（エントリー後のキャンセルはキャンセル料として全額を負担いただきます。）
問合せ先：インスタグラム @yayoidaimon.info

【DANCE MOVIE】大門弥生(YAYOI DAIMON) 「まけんな -MAKENNA-」
Available on https://linkco.re/bqQCXRmM
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/yayoidaimon/
Twitter https://twitter.com/DaimonYayoi
Apple Music
https://music.apple.com/jp/artist/852...
Spotify
https://open.spotify.com/album/1r7TaI...

10/2 2020 Release
Artist：大門弥生 (YAYOI DAIMON)
Lyric：大門弥生 (YAYOI DAIMON)
Music：XLII
Special Guest Dancer：YUU @yuu0715yuki
Dancer：AKANE @a_ka_ney
Dancer：MIHOREINE @mihoreinee_
Dancer：R!NO @rino_matsubara
Choreography：YUU @yuu0715yuki
Director : 武藤 眞志
Hair&Makeup：Yuko Fujiwara
Style：NIKE、TIMELESSTOKYO、OTO GIRLS、寺田歯科医院

Label : Schwaza Records (schwaza.jp)
A&R：Kosuke Kuraseko
jacket title：SEIRAN @seiran_jp
jacket：MARIN KADOWAKI

Special Thank You：HANA KIMURA「木村花を忘れない」

#MAKENNA #GoForIt #Dance

【まけんな (MAKENNA)】日本語（English）
Back in the game right now

口から出まかせ言ってんな（Stop with all the chatting）
やることタイト like my pu**y（The shit I do tight like my pu**y）
リング上で戦う女同士（Alpha females fight up on the ring）
マケンナ気合いはアスリート（Don’t lose the spirit is athlete）
大和撫子生まれはストリート（Yamatonadeshiko born from the hood）

ほっとけんほどドープなビート（A beat so dope I cant leave it）
乗り遅れないように踊っとかんと（Stay dancing so I dont miss the ride）

顎足無しからやってきた（I come from where nothing be）
関西からcome againやってきた（Came from Kansai come again finally here）
コロナでビザも落ちました（Because of Corona my Visa dropped）
人生の意味なんか知らんがな（Well I dont know the meaning of life）

Hey I don’t lose
I don’t I don’t I don’t lose
Dont Lose Dont Lose!

Look
やれんならやってみ（If you cant, then do it）
思い立ったらすぐやる方がいい（Don’t think! just do it）
どうせ当たらんロッタリー（Not gonna win the lotto anyways）
みんなが予想外のパンデミック（Nobody expected the pandemic）

Ring-ring
I don’t need pass the dutch
Ding-ding
勘違い fuck my life（Misunderstanding fuck my life）
Win-win
we gon win pon de mic
Rrrrrn Rrrrrn
変わらん情熱（My passion never changes）

お前のやる気スイッチはどこ？（Wheres your beast mode switch at?）
中途半端ならやめてええよもう（If you gon be bitch you can quit）
何回やっても（No matter how much you try）
ライバルは半歩先にいてまだ上を狙ってる（Your rival is one step ahead aiming for higher）

A mi seh
Hey I don’t lose
I don’t I don’t I don’t lose
Don’t Lose Don’t Lose!

Just do what you do, Imma do what I do
Just do what you do, Imma do what I do

Tengo hambre
腹が減っては戦が出来ねぇ（Cant fight on a empty stomach）
好きな時好きなもん食べれるこの環境にまずサランへ（Eat what I want when I want）
First "Saranghae" love to this sensation

ありきたりな物語（A common story）
花咲かせたいことばかり（I just wanna win and succeed）
大当たりした時に仲間たちと共に笑いたい（When I get my big bag I just wanna laugh with my dude）

Hey I don’t lose
I don’t I don’t I don’t lose
Don’t Lose Don’t Lose!

Check out my English Channel!
https://www.youtube.com/vivianyip

? STAY CONNECTED ?
? MORE ABOUT MY LIFE
https://www.instagram.com/vivavoceee/
?GET MY COLLECTION HERE! - BUTTON APPAREL
https://www.buttonapparel.com/

-------------------------------------­­---------------------------------------­-­-------------------
??Lookbook/outfit 穿搭 → https://bit.ly/2CRjWjk
?️How I loose 30 pounds 減肥 → https://bit.ly/2HaAUNZ
❤️Dating tips 約會小貼士 → https://bit.ly/2VrwKEe
??My morning routine → https://bit.ly/2LXPZkE
-------------------------------------­­---------------------------------------­-­-------------------
⇢ W E A R I N G
Earrings from #ButtonApparel
Sweater from #Bershka

Items mentioned (order according to appearance):

1. How long does it take you to get ready for a date?

2. Whats your idea of a perfect first date?
Dinner
Drinks
Cinema
Adventurous dates

3. What would you gravitate more towards to wear on a date ...
Jeans
Trousers
Skirt
Dress

4. On the date of your choice what makeup would you wear
Girl next door
Smokey and sexy
Bold lip
Brights

5. Your date says you have half an hour to be ready what do you do?

6. Your date asks for the bill, do you ...
Offer to pay - with actual meaning to pay
Make a fake fuss - with no intention of paying
Expect him to pay straight away

7. It's time to say goodbye you really like your date do you ...
Wave
Hug
Kiss on the cheek
Peck
Full on smooch

BONUS QUESTION!!!
8. What's your biggest pet peeve/ turn off on the first date?

Tell me yours in the comments below! Xxx

⇢ M U S I C
VALENTINE - Infatuation (feat. Olu Bliss) - https://thmatc.co/?l=28F992DA
** this video is NOT sponsored.

Thank you so much for watching!
Comment down below what video you would like to see next! ?
Please click the "Subscribe?" and "?" button! I appreciate it.?

MY KEYWORDS
howtostyle lookbook fashion affordable ootd skincare makeup grwm drugstore lifestyle hongkong vlog vlogging fitness longdistancerelationship ldr
歐美 穿搭 化妝 妝容 美容 平價 開架 化妝品 開箱 用後感 淘寶 實穿 試穿 護膚 保濕 香港 生活 健身 養身 遠距離
-------------------------------------­­---------------------------------------­-­-------------------

? BUSINESS INQUIRIES:
vivavocechannel@gmail.com

I'm so excited to have partnered up with Sephora to bring you this episode of Tina Tries It! It's absolutely a dream come true that I was noticed by them and got the chance to try out their #NewAtSephora products! Eeeekkk! I'm still screaming like a little girl inside!!

When I first started my channel 4 years ago, my dream was to work with Sephora and now I feel like all my hard work and late night editing has paid off. I'm glad I followed my gut and took the plunge to pursue YouTube full time. Now I get to do what I love everyday and best of all, I've made 1.5 million new friends! Thank you to all of you! I couldn't have done it without you.

___________________________

=▷PRODUCTS USED:
BITE Beauty, Prismatic Pearl Creme Lip Gloss - http://seph.me/2oWmUg1
Make Up For Ever HD Loose Powder -http://seph.me/2pDiYOP
Benefit Work Kit Girl! - http://seph.me/2pD4ykC
Benefit Sunday My Prince Will Come - http://seph.me/2pD7luf
Benefit Date Night with Mr. Right- http://seph.me/2oPZ8jC
Ole Henriksen Counter Balance Oil Control Hydrator- http://seph.me/2o4K8kQ
Bumble and Bunble Sumoclay - http://seph.me/2osUJ4i
Commodity Fragrance Bergamot -http://seph.me/2pDmJ72
Commodity Fragrance Vetiver - http://seph.me/2osVjz2
Commodity Fragrance Leather - http://seph.me/2oWcay8
__________________________
=▷SUBSCRIBE TO MY NEW VLOG CHANNEL!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQpNuLoVF0GKWazuJ21RXWw/feed
__________________________
=▷WANNA BE FRIENDS?
Instagram: http://instagram.com/tina_yong
SnapChat: tina_yong
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Tinayongfanpage
Twitter: https://twitter.com/tina_yong
Website: http://www.tinayong.com
__________________________
=▷EQUIPMENT I USE:
Microphone: Rodelink Wireless http://amzn.to/2b9lglt
Lighting: Ring Light http://amzn.to/2b9lIjs
Soft Boxes http://amzn.to/2fUZVNU
Camera: Canon 70D http://amzn.to/2bMYobp
Canon G97X Mark II http://amzn.to/2fV1drX
Canon 24-70mm Lens 2.8 http://amzn.to/2b9lqcD
Editing Program: Adobe Premier Pro CC

__________________________
=▷MUSIC
Sea Of Mars- Jahzaar
http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Jahzzar/Galaxy/Seas_of_Mars


Disclaimer: This video was brought to you by Sephora. All opinions are my own and some of the links provided above are affiliate links meaning I do make a small commission when you purchase using the link. This does not cost you extra. You can also purchase from the brand’s websites so don’t feel obliged to use my link if you don’t want to. Thanks for all your support! xx