關於 g form台灣 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

謝謝大家對迪士尼年度動畫大片《尋龍使者：拉雅》線上觀影和大師課程的熱情回應。和主辦單位爭取後, 報名表格將在6月23日21:00 再次開放, 共新釋出100個名額。

你對動畫、視覺設計和電影製作有興趣嗎？AIT、美國國務院美國影片薈萃計畫和華特迪士尼動畫工作室誠摯邀請各位，在線上觀看迪士尼年度動畫大片《尋龍使者：拉雅》並參加線上大師課程。本活動將邀請該片的幕後工作人員和大家會面，並分享他們在製作這部動畫電影中所扮演的角色。活動嘉賓包括電影製作人奧斯納·舒爾 (Osnat Shurer) 、共同編劇阿黛爾·林（Adele Lim）、維拉桑索恩（Faw Veerasunthorn）、基阮（Qui Nguyen）和視覺專家史蒂夫·阿倫薩克 ( Dr. S. Steve Arounsack)。歡迎大家報名參加，我們線上見！

✅線上觀影時間：6月24日星期四下午3點 ~ 7月2日星期五上午9點 (台灣時間)
✅線上大師課程: 7月2日星期五上午9點至10點30分 (台灣時間)

*活動全程英文進行，名額有限，有興趣參加者請填寫線上表格https://forms.office.com/g/17i93exKji ，完成報名及註冊程序。

Thank you for your interest in the Raya and the Last Dragon Screening and Masterclass. We have requested 100 more spaces from the organizers. The signup form will be available again on June 23 at 21:00.

Are you interested in animation, visual development and film production?. AIT, the U.S. State Department’s American Film Showcase and Walt Disney Animation Studios invite you to an exclusive virtual screening of Disney’s Raya and the Last Dragon, along with a live masterclass with members of the film’s creative team. The masterclass will focus on the roles that research, consultants, and personal experience played in the creation of this animated film. Guest speakers include the film’s producer Osnat Shurer, Writers Qui Nguyen and Adele Lim, head of story Faw Veerasunthorn, and visual anthropologist Dr. S. Steve Arounsack. Please join us to watch the film and meet these creators online.

✅Film Screening : from Thursday June 24, 03:00 p.m. through Friday July 2, 09:00 am. (Taiwan Time)
✅Live Masterclass : July 2, 9:00 – 10:30am (Taiwan Time)

*Spots are limited, please fill out the form https://forms.office.com/g/17i93exKji to indicate your interest and signup.

#解鎖難度更高的另一種脆皮吐司．
#Hybrid_Sourdough_bread_baking
#Spelt_and_wheat_flour_Hard_toast_recipe
#利用鮮酵與酸種及湯種完成的好滋味
#麵糰中維他命C的添加與作用
#名詞解釋Clean_label
#發文 :
http://foodchainunme.blogspot.com/2021/05/hybrid-sourdough-bread-baking-spelt-and.html
#修正: 真抱歉. 仔細再讀了一下書中的酸種製備方式. 算出來的水量是50% ( 所以真的會有比較濃重的香氣!)

~~~~~~~~~~~全文轉貼~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

很久沒有這麼燒腦的感覺了. 最近台灣疫情不明朗. 我的心也跟著糾結. 因為我父母都在台灣.兒子女兒( 我們) 都住國外. 本來覺得台灣很安全... 但現在開始擔心起來... 希望這個破口快點補起來! 你看! 我這個資深家裡蹲主婦. 也可以在廚房裡找快樂!

一起玩! 我的忘記疫情方式就是想這些麵粉的連結. 這次我媽幫我寄了這本書. 看了以後很有興趣. 所以就開始拿出計算機來算.... 這本書裡的烘焙比例都有寫了. 只是我因為要用其他的粉類. 並且要放在我自己的容器. 所以才需要這樣算. 這次主圖的這個是使用三能的12兩吐司模具( 2160 ml) 並且以3.4容積比完成.

在書裡關於這類型吐司麵包的主粉清一色都是高筋粉. 在脆皮吐司裡的粉麵筋達14.5% . 使用的麵粉都是含有灰分的粉. 但主粉都是在德粉Weizenmehl405, 義粉Typo 00或是法粉T55 的範疇. 說實在, 蠻好買的. 就是難找到那麼高的筋度就是了!

為什麼脆皮吐司要用有灰份的粉? 這是一個高水量的麵包. 而且在麵包中添加的就是少少量的糖及油( 甚至沒有加油) 用有灰份的粉才會有比較香濃的香氣. 但其實不好處理. 甚至是比較難判斷...所以. 這就考驗到處理麵團的方式了...

一般我們買到的吐司都是綿密看不到甚麼孔洞的. 甚至是越細密的越好. 但關於這款脆皮. 真的要用不同的角度去看. 昨天我在村裡放了我的麵包照片後. 有人就是這樣問我這個問題. 還有人讓我看自己過發的吐司切面.

其實, 過發的吐司切面圖我有....

跟主圖感覺很像!但是孔洞太過一致而且麵包壁很厚. 發酵得好的成功的高水量應該要有些不規則. 例如主圖的麵包成品可以這樣.

整片拉起來的. 是因為發酵得當. 並且鍵結連得好. 整個麵糰的組織是細緻的. 所以當你看到主圖這樣的麵包. 還得要搭配你對於孔洞與麵團的了解來欣賞.

我第一次看到這個類型的麵包是來自於IG 有個日本教烘焙的老師. 我覺得很特別. 因為她的脆皮高度夠膨脹度也夠. 但是卻可以有那樣的孔洞長出來. 你可能認為用棍子或一般我們做酸種包的麵團或是鬆鬆地把麵團放進去吐司模中就行!

答案是沒辦法. 因為我做過！ 當然失敗! 今天是我第一次成功完成這類型的新式脆皮. 我想這種麵包如果能在台灣的麵包店買到. 應該屈指可數. 因為過程繁複. 對於麵團的判斷力也要照顧. 那位日本IG客針對棍子或是洛代夫等麵包開設了 ハードパンレッスン 硬式麵包課程. 這種麵包也算那樣的歸類. 不過, 因為它的手續不同. 好像有另開課程. 她甚至連棍子都有分幾公分長的課程.

我覺得這些麵包課程裡例如孔洞或是酸種的添加都會有不同的處理方式. 其實非常有趣. 所以我文一開始時的燒腦就是因為我想要有相同的好的孔洞及組織. 但是因為我沒做過. 所以希望在酸種的取捨上有判斷能力. 在這段時間以來, 雖然大多數人專心研究酸種. 在我看來沒甚麼不好. 但能讓麵包在外觀及成品的口感上有不同. 搭配商酵也是另一門高深的學問. 當然, 搭配不同的粉甚至是不同灰份的粉都是一種學問.

因為這是智慧財產. 所以我沒辦法對於書上的食譜透漏. 不過, 因為我的比例及用粉不太相同. 但處理方式是一樣的. 所以如果你有興趣. 也可以拿你手邊的高筋粉玩玩看. 或是就去買這本書回家跟著做.對於麵團的處理. 也會比較清楚. 這本書裡有很多照片. 講解也很詳細.

但首先要來談一個以這樣類型麵包在這本書裡有三個配方. 都有用到這個維他命C . 它的作用在BAKERPedia Ascorbic Acid 裡面解釋得非常詳細. 有興趣可以連結看看.
https://bakerpedia.com/ingredients/ascorbic-acid/
這裡還提到一個 Clean Label 這個名詞 BAKERPedia Clean label 也就是不用人工添加物. 並且著重在長時間發酵還有使用比較沒添加物的麵粉完成的烘焙產品. 這樣的產品上就會廣泛地使用維他命C.
所以說, 你覺得這維他命C是一個甚麼樣的產品呢?

來談談我的麵包組成吧!

For a 2160 ml Toast form I use: ( specific volume 3.4)

1. Emmermehl1300 燙種( 1:1 Brühstück) 50 g
2. Dinkelmehl 630 252 g
3. 液態麥芽精 少於 1 g
4. Vitamin C 如上圖所示的小湯匙約半小匙
5. 60%水量 Emmermehl1300 餵養的硬種15 g
6. 黑糖 5 g
7. 鹽 5 g
8. 椰子油 5 g
9. 鮮酵 3 g
10. 老麵 126 g
( 這裡的老麵指的是前一次脆皮吐司剩下的麵糰因為我沒有. 所以請往下看我的備製)
這裡的麵團總重比我需要的實際重量多很多. 因為我又另外做了一個不同麵粉及沒有燙種的脆皮.
1. Manitoba 全穀麵粉 84 g
2. Edeka Weizenmehl 405( 高筋粉. 12.8%蛋白質) 195 g
3. 水 195 g
4. 液態麥芽精 少於 1 g
5. Vitamin C 如上圖所示的小湯匙約半小匙
6. 與主麵糰一樣的硬種 56 g
7. 鮮酵 2 g
8. 黑糖 6 g
9. 鹽 6 g

我將上面的食材混合後放室溫30分鐘以後再轉放6~7 攝氏度冷藏12小時( 以之前的方式. 放保鮮盒, 上面壓著一塊塑膠布並且蓋上保鮮盒蓋) 我放到至少增加兩倍大小. 花了12小時左右.
與上述的主麵糰混合後溫度是22度. 這一點我覺得很重要.

室溫約22度發酵30分鐘後做一次盆內的light fold

之後就不動它. 總發酵時長約1.5小時.
分成兩團滾圓. 中間發酵30分鐘.
最後我放28度發酵1小時40分鐘.
其實書中的烤焙溫度比我的高很多. 等我下次做想要用樓上的烤箱加石板烤烤看.
覺得會更好.
這次的烤焙我的方式是預熱225度( 上下加熱)
在吐司麵糰上噴水. 放入烤箱後改只用下火. ( 這是我烤箱的功能. 只能上火或下火)
期間有噴兩次水. 分別是3分及10分鐘時.
視情況選擇何時蓋上鋁箔防止表面烤太焦.

這就是成績.

以這種效果出來的照片可以看得很清楚非常細緻的麵包壁. 氣孔也帶有一點野性. 跟過發麵糰的孔洞真的很不同啊!!!

我覺得這個麵團最難操作的是混合. 因為容易筋度無法出來. 但也不是不能做. 這是昨天晚上出爐的另一個麵包. 使用的主粉是一般高筋粉及一點( 我忘了我加多少XD ) Manitoba全穀粉. 並且不用燙種( 因為用完了@@ ) 這是用日式一斤半吐司完成的. 也是3.4容積比

兩個不同的麵包做比較. 小一點的是今天食譜中的12兩麵包. 大一點的是上面這個一斤半的麵包

加了斯佩爾特及Emmer很多的脆皮吐司烤過後會有甚麼不同? 你可以看到上面的顏色. 12兩個有點微黃色. 可是烤完以後會很明顯地變成這樣的黃色( 我特意用白色盤子裝)

這種吐司如果要烤. 一定要切厚片烤. 這樣就可以有外脆內軟的烤土司. 但比起以前的密緻孔洞脆皮. 這個切薄片烤完會偏硬. 所以建議切薄片就不需要烤. 真的可以吃出那個麵包的Q 度! 吃出麥香並且帶有一些些酸種的香氣. 是Hybrid sourdough 烘焙的最好代表.

最後, 這本書真的很推薦. 因為裡面有一些以這個麵糰應用的小麵包做法. 但是對於這本書裡的一些要求是我家裡沒有辦法做到的. 所以有一些小小的我覺得可以分享的改變與對應方式想在這裡談:

１書本的步驟中有很多時候是放零度冰箱!!!
麵包酵母菌在零度基本上是睡覺! 而且在老麵的添加上我也覺得它應該也是用儲存零度的老麵. 因為這麼大量的老麵混合如果發酵太過度只是影響麵筋.
這是很多家庭烘焙要找尋適合自己操作完成好麵包的功課.
例如, 如果它說一定要在零度.但是放冰箱前有一個40分鐘的時間是室溫. 你就放3~5度. 但是就不要跟著放室溫太久甚至不放室溫直接冷藏!
如果沒辦法3~5度. 就想辦法將時間再減半酵母量也是減少. 溫度是影響麵糰的關鍵. 我自己覺得這樣去找方是蠻有趣的. 因為並不是每個人家裡都有很低溫的冰箱. 而且疫情期間也很難有一個大空間來冰麵糰.

2. 麥芽精
麥芽精的出現是很多書裡都有的固定用法. 因為只需要少少量. 通常都是粉量的0.2%. 所以大多是兌水調成一個水溶液. 我比較懶. 所以都是這樣加XD
有沒有看到盆左邊邊緣那一滴東西XD 那就是我的麥芽精😂😂😂

3. 維他命C 的添加量也很少. 所以我的方式就是500 g粉 加一小平匙.

4. 後發上. 它也會有濕度的標準. 70% 濕度 我會噴水在麵糰表面. 並且蓋上塑膠布. 之後放發酵箱
不過我的烤箱有這樣的功能. 這次給它這個機會. 這是發酵第二顆吐司的做法:

5. 其實我的酵母使用方式跟書本上的沒有很相同. 因為我並沒有書中的半乾酵母. 而且在酸種的添加上也不太一樣. 這裡的酸種並不是真的拿來做發酵的( 當然多少也有參與, 不過比較主力是在商酵) . 反而比較像是增添風味及攪拌混勻的速度. 這也是我蠻喜歡的用法. 因為這樣才有比較原始麥子的味道. 我很喜歡脆皮吐司的單純風味. 不過這次的酸種我算是用比較重口味. 書中的都是100%水量的酸種.而我用的是Emmermrhl1300 餵養的硬種.

我的孔洞已經有出來了. 接下來就是要改善. 做到最完善!

有興趣. 一起玩吧!

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”

http://www.techalook.com.tw/panasonic-eluga-u2/

在Tommy很小很小的時候Panasonic推出了GD90，聽說當年手上拿著GD90可是哈日族最蝦趴的事情喔!!但之後Panasonic的手機就消失在台灣市場裡，然後10多年後的今天帶著 Panasonic Eluga U2 又重回台灣市場了!!

Panasonic Eluga U2 的外框是擁有珍珠白光澤的材質，微微閃閃發光很有質感，而它的背面採用強化玻璃材質，非常耐刮。底下可以看到點狀紋路壓花搭配白色為基底的設計，據Panasonic官方表示這樣的設計是有有療癒、紓壓的效果。當你使用超過30分鐘或者眼睛疲勞時，可以直接翻到背面讓眼睛休息一下，這種特別功能也只有日式手機才會想得出來吧！

前置為500萬畫素的鏡頭，後置鏡頭則是1300萬像素，並搭配一顆LED補光燈。相機的介面很齊全，可調整白平衡、也有延時快門、有全景、錄影和各種濾鏡可套用。是一台包含很多小巧思的手機。 Panasonic Eluga U2 在陽光下、光源佳的表現都不錯，照片效果清晰、顏色逼真，但是對焦比拍照慢，且夜間拍攝則是Eluga U2 的弱點，在低光源的環境下，照片效果容易晃動，也不容易對到焦，弱光環境下照片的表現顯得較吃力。

Tommy 也發現Eluga U2幾乎沒有Panasonic的客製化程式，算是非常接近Android原生系統。

Panasonic Eluga U2 一推出的定位就是在中低階的入門機型，除了提供高規格，更輕薄、給用戶不同選擇之外， Panasonic ELUGA U2 擁有日系手機簡單精緻的風格，未來還聽說會推出粉紅色版本，如果你想要一台與眾不同的手機，那麼 Panasonic Eluga U2 會是你值得考慮的選擇。

對於影片有什麼意見歡迎在下方留言，別忘了訂閱我們頻道，加入粉絲團，讓我們為你介紹最新3C資訊喔！

Facebook： http://www.facebook.com/techalook.com.tw
G+： https://plus.google.com/+TechaLookTw/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TechaLook
微博: http://weibo.com/u/3756536004
優酷: http://i.youku.com/TechaLook

Help us caption & translate this video!

http://amara.org/v/KSmG/

instagram
https://instagram.com/dr34mlucid/


Dream Taiwan 夢臺灣

subscribe 訂閱
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVnGd...

現在，過去，未來，臺灣。

　　一個老外，用雙腳走臺灣、用眼睛看臺灣、用相機拍臺灣、用Gopro錄臺灣、用KTR騎臺灣、用直排輪溜臺灣。

　　這個頻道是我搜集起來的總集，請大家跟我一起來欣賞台灣許多美麗與有趣的小地方。

Welcome to my channel! :) Here I present to you all the weird and wonderful pieces of Taiwan in video form. As I travel around I record everything on my Gopro and edit the past the way I like to remember it - as strange little droplets of space-time. If you have a fasination in Asia, Taiwan, or Taipei subscribe for your regular fix here!


SUBSCRIBE
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVnGd...