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

這是阿培曾經在我巴褲的書裡面寫的，這文章是阿培本身養狗的經驗，對每個養狗的人都有很大的幫助，希望大家有時間可以把它看完，我翻譯成英文讓大家看：
Apei wrote many things into my Baku book. Mainly how to raise dogs, his life experience with dogs and about dog breeds. Its very useful information so please take a look. I translated it into English for everyone to read.

想要養全世界最大的狗，所有的大狗養過一輪，最後情定獒犬。
I wanted to raise all the big dogs available around the world. I wanted to takes turns raising all the big dogs, but I fell for Mastiff.

我從小就有個心願，要養全世界最大的狗。十幾歲開始工作，慢慢把大狗養了一輪：紐波利頓獒犬、大丹、高加索——最後才把重心放在西藏獒犬上。
Ever since when I was very young, I had a dream to raise all the big dogs available throughout the world. I started working at a very young age. Over the years, I had owned a Neapolitan Mastiff, Great Dane, Caucasian Shepherd, and finally now I am totally focused on taking care of my Tibetan Mastiff.

其實每種狗都可愛，只是養著養著，慢慢摸索出自己最喜歡的樣子——
To be honest, no matter what the breed, each dog is cute & lovable in its own way. Having own so many dogs, I slowly figured out what I like the most.

比方紐波利頓，嘴巴皮垂皺加上毛短，吃完東西不馬上擦乾淨，很容易過敏有皮膚病，照養上很費功夫。
Neapolitan Mastiff, for example, has saggy faces and very short hair. If you don’t clean him up after a meal, the dog can very easily have allergic reactions or skin diseases. It’s quite a chore taking care of this breed of dogs.

大丹漂亮修長，但我更喜歡粗勇的體型。
Great Danes are beautiful and usually possesses a lengthy body, but I like ones with a thicker and wider body.

高加索犬算是最貼近我期待的，但是，高加索犬野性比較強，對其他小狗比較不友善。
Caucasian Shepherd is perhaps a breed that is closest to my ideal type. However, shepherds are more primitive, they are not that friendly to small dogs.

至於西藏獒犬，牠忠實、對小孩、女人和小型動物又溫和——尤其是冬天，西藏獒犬換上一身長披毛，站出來威風凜凜、霸氣十足。
As far as Tibetan Mastiff goes, they are loyal, and gentle around kids, women, and other small animals. Especially during winter, a Tibetan Mastiff would change into a long fur coat, appearing so confident and proud, as if everything else is beneath them.
養到西藏獒犬，我心中就有「中」的感覺——所以一路養到現在。
When I got to owning a Tibetan Mastiff, that’s when my heart and mind went: “This is the one!” And so… I have been raising one ever since.

之前養的每隻狗，我都是養到牠們老死——大型狗的平均壽命比中小型犬還要短的許多，大概10年到15年。
All the dogs I had previously, I have always had them until they passed away peacefully in my arms due to old age. The average lifespan of large-sized dogs are usually a lot shorter than small-sized dogs. 10 -15 years, I would say, is probably the max.

要駕馭大型狗，教法是重點。我常跟人說，「狗的主人要有霸氣，要比狗兇」。從小規矩就要訂下——如果主人希望能帶大狗去散步，一定要從小帶牠出門，讓牠習慣走在你腿旁邊，讓牠早早社會化。
To manage a large-sized dog, the key is on teaching. I often tell my friends: “As a dog owner you have to be dominant, you have to be more dominant than your dog.” Show ‘em who’s the boss in the house, so to speak lol. As a dog owner if you wish to take your large dog out for a walk, you have to start taking them for a walk when they are still very small, let them get used to walking alongside you, this is basically to socialize them.

你帶領狗去散步，不是牠帶你去散步——讓牠們見多視廣，狗就不會有初見陌生事物激動暴衝的時候。
Remember tho, you are taking them for a walk, not the other way around. You have to let them see more, let them become familiarize with what’s happening on the outside. This way, it will lessen the occurrence of your dog having violent reactions to unfamiliar or unknown objects.

基本上，除非是生病，要不然狗咬人，都是基於「恐懼」。牠怕主人被攻擊，所以擺出戰鬥姿態——當然，社會化不足或主人威嚴感比較差的狗，就比較容易出在驚慌狀態下而暴衝咬人。
Basically, unless your dog is sick, a dog only starts biting people out of “fear.” They fear that his owner will be attacked, that’s why he goes into “combat mode.” Of course, a dog that is less socialized or a dog with a less dominant owner will more likely become violent (including biting) when they feel threatened or panicking.

這部分是主人的問題，比較不是狗狗本身的問題。改善了狗主人的牽法與教育狗的方式，狗的暴衝、易怒問題就可以得到改善。
This is the owner’s fault, and not on the dog. Once you improve upon the way you walk the dog and educate the dog the right away, the dog’s violent behavior and violent tendencies will show an improvement.

獒犬還有一個別稱，「栓犬」。讓獒犬待在同個地方大概30分鐘，牠就會覺得那是牠地盤，開始會對經過的路人兇，這點要特別注意。
Mastiff also goes by another name, “guardian dogs.” If you let a Mastiff stay in one place for over 30 minutes, he’ll think that this place is his place, his territory, and will starting defending it by being aggressive to passerby, this is something to be aware of.

我最常被問到的，獒犬吃很多三餐費用很高吧？
The question that I was asked the most is… “Mastiffs eat a lot, don’t they? So you must’ve spend a lot of dog food, right?”

我自己對狗比較捨得，讓牠吃好——牛肉全雞羊肉，但是也不一定要跟我一樣餵法。讓牠們吃飽，有時間去跑跑步，偶爾洗一下澡，牠們就很開心了。
I am more catering to my dog, that’s for sure. I’ll let him eat the good stuff --- beef, full chicken, lamb… But you don’t have to do it like me, tho, just feed him regularly so your dog is not hungry. If you have the time, take him for a walk or a jog, or bathe him, he is going to be really really happy if you do so.

最後要提醒的是，大型犬因為身體重腳的負擔大，狗主人最好是把牠們養在不滑的地板上，跟，6個月以前的小狗，髖關節還沒發育完全，不要讓牠們大量跑跳。這兩點注意一下，加上每天帶花時間帶牠們去散步運動，這樣就能保持牠們四隻腳的健康，減少很多腿部問題。
Lastly, I want remind everyone, as far as large dogs go, because of their huge physique they have tons of pressure on their feet, so it’s best for a dog owner to raise a large-sized dog on a non-slippery floor. Also, for a dog that is not yet 6 months old, don’t let the dog do too much jumping and running because his hip joint isn’t fully developed yet. That’s two things you should keep in mind. So as long as you take the time to walk your dog and do a bit of exercise, you’ll be able to keep their legs healthy, which will reduce a lot of the dog’s leg problems.

不管大狗小狗，牠們都是我們的家人，養了，就好好照顧牠一輩子。最後還是那句話.如何對待如何回報.
No matter big or small, a dog is family. If you got one, please take care of him/her for the rest of its life. Lastly, just want to say, You reap what you sow.

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”

PRESS STATEMENT (IN REPLY TO RONNIE LIU)

I refer to the press statement from the State Assemblyman of Sungai Pelek, titled “Muhyiddin must come clean on the COVID-19 vaccine.” The State Assemblyman has claimed several inaccuracies, allegations, and misrepresentations that require answering in this statement.

I will answer them one by one.

1. The State Assemblyman has alleged that the mRNA vaccine will alter the DNA of a person. He has also questioned whether it will be approved by JAKIM based on the same premise.

Briefly, in our cells, mRNAs (messenger RNAs) are temporary molecules that are made from our genomic DNA before it is translated to make a protein. It is essentially a short-term, temporary message.
In this case, the temporary message instructs the body to produce one of the proteins on the surface of the coronavirus. The immune system will then learn to recognise the virus protein and produce antibodies against it. That’s all the mRNA vaccine does. It does not alter your DNA.

In response to State Assemblyman’s query if JAKIM will approve the vaccine since “it is capable of altering the DNA of a person?” The DNA issue has been addressed above. In addition, I have already stated that JAKIM is part of the Jawatankuasa Khas Jaminan Akses Bekalan Vaksin COVID-19 (JKJAV) which assesses COVID-19 vaccines. Furthermore, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Religious Affairs) YB Datuk Seri Dr Zulkifli Mohamad Al-Bakri clarified in Parliament, the Muzakarah (Conference) of the National Fatwa Council will study and deliberate on the matter.

2. The State Assemblyman has also questioned who will be paying for the vaccine. If he read beyond the headlines of the announcement, he would have seen that the Prime Minister has pledged that the Government will fund the public COVID-19 vaccination programme for Malaysians with an initial target of 70% of our population to reach herd immunity. The Malaysian Government has set aside at least RM 3 billion solely for this purpose.

3. The pricing of the Pfizer vaccine is covered by a non-disclosure agreement as each country negotiates directly with the pharmaceutical company. Suffice it to say we are satisfied with the terms and pricing that we have agreed upon. The terms we have reached protect Malaysia’s interests both financially and with regards to the safety of the vaccine.

I can categorically confirm that it is definitely less than the RM100 per dose as assumed by the State Assemblyman.

4. The State Assemblyman also claimed that we are rushing to sign deals with vaccine manufacturers. I can categorically say that this is false. We have been negotiating with vaccine manufacturers since April 2020 when we announced our Science Diplomacy strategy. We are considering all data provided by the companies we are negotiating with in order to make the best, most informed decision. This is just the first of many deals that we are considering. Negotiations are ongoing including with vaccine manufacturers from China (including the manufacturer which the State Assemblyman strongly champions). I would like to emphasise that the vaccines must be deemed safe and efficacious by the National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (NPRA) under MOH before we execute the agreements and begin the vaccination process.

It is important to note that not any one pharmaceutical company will be able to supply vaccines for the entire Malaysian population. This is why the multi-pronged approach to procure a portfolio of vaccines is significant in order to obtain enough doses to meet our herd immunity target of 70% of the population.

5. With regards to the ultra-cold supply chain required; the shipment will be handled and delivered by Pfizer directly.

As for ultra-cold storage, we have ultra-low temperature freezers in universities and research institutes in the country which can be redeployed, if necessary. Pfizer has also shown that the vaccines are stable at 2-8 degree Celsius for five days.

We are also not getting the 12.8 million doses in one shot. They will be staggered throughout the year. Our planning for storage will take the delivery schedule into consideration.

6. MOH’s efforts during the crisis have not only been domestically praised but also internationally recognised. They have been working constantly and consistently to ensure that Malaysians have among the best standards of healthcare in the world. All of us will help where we can.

We are taking a whole-of-government approach to the COVID-19 crisis. It is all hands-on deck. Every one of my Cabinet colleagues is involved in this effort to get us through this pandemic.

On the question as to why I am involved, I co-chair the JKJAV with Health Minister, YB Dato’ Seri Dr Adham Baba. MOSTI is also involved in vaccine negotiations as the ministry in charge of biotechnology. The Malaysia Genome Institute under MOSTI is producing whole genome sequencing and bioinformatics analysis to detect mutations in the genome from COVID-19 samples.

MOSTI is also in the midst of developing a National Vaccine Roadmap. The National Institutes of Biotechnology (NIBM), Malaysia under MOSTI is collaborating with multiple foreign research institutes in vaccine development R&D as well.

I continue to welcome questions and queries on this important national endeavour.

KHAIRY JAMALUDDIN

30 NOVEMBER 2020

https://www.khairykj.com/statements/press-statement-in-reply-to-ronnie-liu

Overhit Korea
Olivia
Skills: (Translated using Google Translate)

Skill 1 (87sec)
Gives 257% damage to 5 Enemies. Additionally reduces defense by 36% for 70 sec.
inlicts burn to 5 enemies with 50% of atk pwr per 5 secs for 25 secs.
in addition, the burn damage will be doubled if the enemies already got burns effect (High Chance)
(Burn effect reduces critical resist by 10%)

Skill 2 (98sec)
Targets 3 enemies with the highest atk power with 369% damage.
Reduces buff by 2 times
in addition, burn effect damage will be doubled if the enemies already has burns effect

Line Effect
Increase the ally critical dmg by 83.3% in mid row

Passive
-Reduces 5 enemies damage by 24.3%.
-Increases 5 ally CC resistance chance by 27%.
-Increases 5 ally defense by 21.9%
(PVP) in every battle, every olivia action will gives cursed effect to 1 enemy with highest atk pwr. (maybe her normal atk)
Cursed enemies are subject to non-recovery and receive 2087 dmg for every olivia action.
(Cursed effect only active if olivia is alive)
After 6 sec of death, Olivia will revive to 82.3% of her max health.
(Revive only once per combat)
Potential Skill acquisition adds the ability to block all damage 4 times at start of combat.

(Translated using Google Translate)

This is the place where I got my 42 bug bites in one day. I spent around 2 weeks recovering and non of those day I went out. Not to even the groceries. Welcome to the Bai Yun Shan of Guangzhou or translated, White Clouds Mountain.

See full post on:

http://tipsnstyle.com/baiyun-shan-guangzhou/

BLOG:

http://tipsnstyle.com

FIND ON SOCIAL!

Instagram: instagram.com/karenwenwu
Facebook: facebook.com/tipsnstyle
Snapchat: @kkwen
Periscope: @karenwenwu

FOR BUSINESS INQUIRIES:

karenwenwu@hotmail.com

STOP BY TO SAY HI!

karen@tipsnstyle.com

FAQ:

Camera used: Canon EOS M
Age: 16

Comment "I'm a unicorn" if you have gotten this far :)

Best,
Karen

二ノ国 白き聖灰の女王 非公式劇場版 (Ni no Kuni: Shiroki Seihai no Joou Hikoshiki Gekijouban)

!!!Warning for SPOILERS!!!

This video contains all the voiced cut-scenes and certain non voiced event scenes that I think are important. All edited to make a movie like video.

CURRENTLY
Still working on the subtitles, when it's done

Turn on Captions - "English Fan subtitles"

There's only me that is working on doing the time setting and script translation, so it might take a long while.
Current Progress:
- Scripting dialogues: 100% done
- Time setting: 100% done
- Translation: 768/3140 done
Finished JP Srt: http://pastebin.com/gxwTWPcE
or
You can check out how the YT's caption feature looks like when I use it as subtitling (short few lines of translated script) Turn on caption "English - Preview"
Now finally working on the actual translation

Every seconds in the video there is someone talking... so it does take a while

Some scripts that are translated are written from what I feel the conversation should be instead of being an accurate translation (which sometimes might be a weird sentence).

Being that I am using Youtube's Caption feature, I can update the subtitles anytime I want. If you want to correct me, just post it on the comment with "Video time that is was said + translation" and I will try to put it in. Credits will be listed on the description too.

The reason why I could or want to do this was because of the furigana (There's no way I'll know how to read those kanjis without furigana...). This translation project can also help me learn a bit more japanese I hope.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Playthrough Playlist:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL09443B0BA6FFEE48
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
H264 Video Codec @ 1280x720p 30FPS 8mb bitrate
AAC 44.1KHz 96,000bps Audio Bitrate
MP4 Container