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

How to Have God’s Faith

“Jesus replied, “Let the faith of God be in you! Listen to the truth I speak to you: If someone says to this mountain with great faith and having no doubt, ‘Mountain, be lifted up and thrown into the midst of the sea,’ and believes that what he says will happen, it will be done.” (Mark‬ ‭11:22-23‬ ‭TPT‬‬)

In the passage above, Jesus said the “faith of God” and not “faith in God”. If we want to perform mighty miracles like casting a mountain into the sea, we will need to receive God’s own faith.

“For I say, through the grace that was given me, to every man who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think reasonably, as God has apportioned to each person a measure of faith.” (Romans‬ ‭12:3‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

You see, there is the measure of faith that God already gave to us in the past, and also God’s own faith that He gives to believers at appointed timings.

The former is the one that we keep free from unbelief through daily renewing of the mind, while the latter is more powerful because it is pure and guaranteed to mightily prosper in its intended purpose.

“But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the profit of all. For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; to another faith, by the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, by the same Spirit; and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discerning of spirits; to another different kinds of languages; and to another the interpretation of languages. But the one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing to each one separately as he desires.” (1 Corinthians‬ ‭12:7-11‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Faith is one of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. He distributes this “faith of God” at times. Every believer can receive this.

To understand when this God-faith comes, we have to know the delivery system:

“Faith, then, is birthed in a heart that responds to God’s anointed utterance of the Anointed One.” (Romans‬ ‭10:17‬ ‭TPT‬‬)

Many English Bible translations do a poor job of translating the verse above. They stray from the original Greek meaning. However, I like the translation I quoted above.

The words translated as “anointed utterance” in Greek is “rhematos” which means “a spoken word”. “The Anointed One” is Christou, which is Christ.

“Rhematos Christou” is not referring to God’s written Scriptures in general. That one would be the logos word, or “what God has said before”. The rhema word is talking about what Christ is currently actively saying to you through His Spirit inside you.

When Jesus speaks a rhema word to you, it carries God’s authority. When you hear and act upon that word, the “faith of God” is imparted to you for mighty power to be released. This is when miracles and breakthroughs flow.

Let us see this in action:

“Peter answered him and said, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the waters.” He said, “Come!” Peter stepped down from the boat, and walked on the waters to come to Jesus.” (Matthew‬ ‭14:28-29‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Jesus said “Come,” and this rhema word carried the authority for Peter to transcend the natural laws of nature. When Peter heard the command and acted upon it, the “faith of God” was imparted to him, empowering him to walk on the waters.

You may be surprised by this, but even Jesus depended on the rhema word from His Father during His earthly ministry.

“Jesus therefore answered them, “Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise. For the Father has affection for the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does. He will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel.” (John‬ ‭5:19-20‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Before doing any miracle, Jesus first received the rhema word from the Father, and He simply obeyed, acting upon what the Father showed Him.

When Jesus acted upon the rhema word, God’s power flows because the authority, faith, and will of God are working in perfect synergy.

It is therefore most crucial that we ask the Lord to give us the rhema word for our situation. To receive it, you can calm your emotions and pray about your situation, listening in silence to see what the Holy Spirit brings to your attention.

Other than that, sometimes He uses your pastor or Christian friend to speak divinely inspired words to you. The Holy Spirit is the source of the rhema word. The way He delivers it isn’t the most important thing, so be open to however He chooses to convey the rhema word to you.

When it comes, grab hold of it in your heart, and act upon it, for it is the key to unlock God’s supernatural provision in your situation!

The 37 recorded miracles of Jesus Christ in the four gospels show us God’s heart of love and Grace towards us. As you explore them in “Messiah’s Miracles”, faith will arise in your heart to receive miraculous breakthroughs in your own life: https://bit.ly/messiahs-miracles

Water is Coming to you

“He said, “Yahweh says, ‘Make this valley full of trenches.’ For Yahweh says, ‘You will not see wind, neither will you see rain, yet that valley will be filled with water, and you will drink, both you and your livestock and your other animals. This is an easy thing in Yahweh’s sight. He will also deliver the Moabites into your hand. You shall strike every fortified city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all springs of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones.’” In the morning, about the time of offering the sacrifice, behold, water came by the way of Edom, and the country was filled with water. Now when all the Moabites heard that the kings had come up to fight against them, they gathered themselves together, all who were able to put on armor, young and old, and stood on the border. They rose up early in the morning, and the sun shone on the water, and the Moabites saw the water opposite them as red as blood. They said, “This is blood. The kings are surely destroyed, and they have struck each other. Now therefore, Moab, to the plunder!” When they came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up and struck the Moabites, so that they fled before them; and they went forward into the land attacking the Moabites.” (2 Kings‬ ‭3:16-24‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

The Israel army coalition had no water to drink for seven days. They were thirsty and asked the prophet Elisha to inquire of the Lord Yahweh.

The Lord’s instruction was to make the valley full of trenches, in preparation to collect the water.

Yet you may wonder where is the water going to come from if there is no wind or rain?

Sometimes, when the Lord asks you to get into position, just do it without trying to reason it out.

He said to make the valley full of trenches, meaning GET READY TO RECEIVE.

How much water do you want to catch? The more trenches you dig, the more water you will store, if not the water will come, but it will just flow away.

The Lord allows you to choose how much you want to act upon His rhema word. If you have faith, you will make the valley of your life full of trenches, ready to receive from Him.

The water came by the way of Edom. It is not your job to know how the water comes. The point is, the water WILL come because the Lord has commanded it.

The water had a double purpose for the Israel coalition. It satiated their thirst, and it also became an important military tactic used by the Lord to defeat Israel’s enemies.

The water that you collect in the coming days will enable you to defeat enemies in your life.

Everyone’s “trenches” are different—you will know what yours is. Whatever the Lord has put into your heart to do, remember that you can choose how much water you will collect, based on how many trenches you make.

Do not waste time questioning, “How will the water come? How is it possible?” The water is coming so it is time to get in position!

For those who don’t know, I am having a flash 40% off sale for “The Everything Bundle” that contains all my eBooks. The sale will end after today. A big thank you to all those who bought!

Here's a list of what you will receive when you get this bundle:

* All My Sermon Notes ebooks (2014 - 2020, so 7 eBooks in total)
* Understand the Four Gospels Through the Lens of Grace (4 ebooks set)
* Sandcastles Don't Last Forever ebook
* Messiah's Miracles: The Power of Having Faith in Jesus Christ ebook
* A Tour of Heaven and Eternity ebook
* Beautiful, Healthy and Strong Like Jesus ebook
* How to Fast Under Grace ebook
* How to Receive Health and Healing From the Tree of Life ebook
* The Book of Revelation Explained ebook
* The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ebook
* God's Appointed Time: How to Be Fruitful in Every Season of Life ebook
* Silencing the Serpent: How Christians Can Be Victorious in Spiritual Warfare ebook
* Younger and Younger: 31 Days of God's Youth Renewal Promises ebook
* All Things Made New: How to Prosper in All Things Through God's Restoration ebook
* 6 months access to the God Every Morning (GEM) devotionals archive with more than 600 devotionals at the moment.

You can also read the 5-star customer reviews at the bottom of the product page. Get “The Everything Bundle” here: https://bit.ly/-everything-bundle

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”

「封景．志異-臺南市美術館典藏主題展」精選60件本館典藏作品，分成兩個階段展出，將藝術家創作視為一種當代的志異實踐，一種探知世界、考掘社會文化、提陳徵候異樣、檢視物我關係的媒介，依展間區分成「人間」、「神境」、「自然」三個子題，訴說這些典藏風景，從覺知及揭露政治社會和日常生活中的闇影，藉由入景形見，指認出猶待感應和思忖的所在；或者深入民俗場域，呈現眾生與神交陪、祈求顯靈保佑的精神表現和影像歷史；再到移情入景、重返自然，為心靈找到安適棲居的歸處；再再點示出，人不斷經由掌握自我與周遭環境之牽涉，追問本身的存在如何與世界彼此相容相攝，採取適當回應或介入，進而開啟其經心所願的向度和形廓。另則，選件的題材紛陳，亦增添了風景圖像的意義、開擴了風景再現系統的邊界。



on view in this exhibition are 60 artworks selected from the collection of the Tainan Art Museum, with the artworks presented in two stages. The exhibition sees the artists’ practices as contemporary records of anomalies, which act as mediums for exploring the world, excavating social culture, proposing signs of irregularities, and examining the self-other relationship. The exhibition is divided into the following three sub-categories: “Mortal World”, “Mystic Realm”, and “Nature”, showing how these selected landscape artworks from the collection have evolved from a state of being aware to exposing the dark sides of politics, society, and also in everyday ordinary life, and then by immersing in the scenes and allowing them to manifest, they also point out places that still await to be experienced and contemplated. Some of the artworks have gone deep into places of folklore, showing historical images of people’s interactions with deities and their spiritual behaviors of praying for divine protection. Emotions are also transferred into the landscapes depicted, with a secure sense of spiritual belonging sought after by returning to the embrace of nature. These artworks suggest that through self-awareness and involvement with our surrounding environment, people are constantly questioning our own existence and our relationship with the world, with suitable responses or interferences conducted to open up dimensions or contours that we envision inside. Additionally, the themes presented by the selected artworks are diverse and different; they enhance the meaning embodied by images of landscape and push the boundary of landscape representation.




《封景．志異－臺南市美術館典藏主題展》
地點：南美館2館展覽間F-H
展期：2019.6.14(五)－2020.5.12(二)


Sealed Landscapes, Records of Anomalies - Selected Works from the TNAM Collection
Venue: Gallery F-H, TAM Building 2
Period: 2019.6.14(Fri)－2020.5.12(Tue)

Download & stream at http://flashover.choons.at/blueprinta ...

It’s been said that “space exploration is a force unto itself”, a statement that can aptly be applied to the experience of music discovery. A purveyor of a music with that timeless quality, Ferry Corsten actioned himself into taking his own artist exploration deeper with his fifth artist album. Entitled ‘Blueprint’ because of his technical approach to this latest studio outing. This newest longplayer by the Rotterdam native was spawned from an idea to unite the music with a storyline that stretches beyond a nebulous lyrical theme. Combining his love for the art of screenwriting and film score Ferry has crafted ‘Blueprint’ as a concept release to put a wider perspective on his musical vision.


Transcending any referential genre, ‘Blueprint’s storyline centres around two protagonists in Lukas and the extra-terrestrial being Vee. From a discovery to a bond to consciousness to interdimensional travel, ‘Blueprint’ embarks on a journey across the galaxy asking many questions from its listeners.


Encapsulated in the soundtrack is a musical narrative that entwines with a storyboard crafted by the minds of David H Miller (of House Of Cards and Rosewood fame) and Ferry himself. The resulting effort gives the listener a conceptual direction that is breathtakingly beautiful. Narrated by Hollywood actor Campbell Scott (known for The Amazing Spider-Man and The Exorcism of Emily Rose), whose voice unravels the mystery of ‘Blueprint’s storyline.


Written into the musical code of the album we learn that from the deepest edges of space ‘The Drum’ can be heard, endlessly repeating, without any understanding as to its reason or purpose. None of the greatest minds on earth nor governmental superpower can decipher its existence. Except one. As the listener journeys from the opening track to the last the album chronicles the voyage of Lukas and Vee as a new world is opened to not just the mind but the heart.


With its opening title track ‘Blueprint’ the album commences in wondrous form straddling euphoria and seduction at its heart, as it shoots for the stars setting up for a cosmic ballet. The atmospherical payoff of ‘Venera (Vee’s Theme)’ is enchantingly uplifting, as listeners have their first encounter with Vee. The vocal of Eric Lumiere adds depth to the character’s arrival with ‘Something To Believe In’ before ‘Edge Of The Skye’, featuring Haliene, ignites an odyssey to ‘A World Beyond’. The weaving metronomic build of ‘Trust’ is industriously rich and perfectly poised for this interstellar exploration. Whilst the otherworldly tones of ‘Lonely Inside’ beam us into the isolation of Space and renders all meaning beyond one emotion, desire. The sentiment on Haliene’s voice pierces through on the tense ‘Piece of You’ before we head into the third act and encounter “The Drum” again on ‘Drum's A Weapon’. The album majestically concludes with the beautiful combo of Haliene & Eric Lumiere on ‘Another Sunrise’ and the ‘Eternity’ with its Shepherd scale-esque splendour.


With the narrative that gives nods to the proses of iconic sci-fi authors such as Jules Verne, Hugo Gernsback and most distinctively HG Wells, whilst sharing familiarities with modern day shows such as The OA, Westworld and retro Sci-fi-fest Stranger Things, ‘Blueprint’ is an explorative piece of work that puts Sci-fi at its interstellar core. A brave and unique studio release from one of the most iconic artists in the electronic scene but Ferry’s attempts with ‘Blueprint’ are simply to bring a wider perspective to the listener, as he aims the album to be inclusive of dimensions of religion, history, ideals and science fiction.

Follow Ferry Corsten:
http://www.ferrycorsten.com
http://www.vk.com/ferrycorsten
http://www.twitter.com/ferrycorsten
http://www.facebook.com/ferrycorsten
http://www.instagram.com/ferrycorsten

Follow Ray Shen:
https://www.facebook.com/djRayShen/
https://soundcloud.com/ray-shen-3
https://www.mixcloud.com/ray-shen/

Subscribe at http://www.youtube.com/ferrycorsten
Ferry Corsten - Blueprint is out now!
Download & stream at http://flashover.choons.at/blueprinta...

It’s been said that “space exploration is a force unto itself”, a statement that can aptly be applied to the experience of music discovery. A purveyor of a music with that timeless quality, Ferry Corsten actioned himself into taking his own artist exploration deeper with his fifth artist album. Entitled ‘Blueprint’ because of his technical approach to this latest studio outing. This newest longplayer by the Rotterdam native was spawned from an idea to unite the music with a storyline that stretches beyond a nebulous lyrical theme. Combining his love for the art of screenwriting and film score Ferry has crafted ‘Blueprint’ as a concept release to put a wider perspective on his musical vision.


Transcending any referential genre, ‘Blueprint’s storyline centres around two protagonists in Lukas and the extra-terrestrial being Vee. From a discovery to a bond to consciousness to interdimensional travel, ‘Blueprint’ embarks on a journey across the galaxy asking many questions from its listeners.


Encapsulated in the soundtrack is a musical narrative that entwines with a storyboard crafted by the minds of David H Miller (of House Of Cards and Rosewood fame) and Ferry himself. The resulting effort gives the listener a conceptual direction that is breathtakingly beautiful. Narrated by Hollywood actor Campbell Scott (known for The Amazing Spider-Man and The Exorcism of Emily Rose), whose voice unravels the mystery of ‘Blueprint’s storyline.


Written into the musical code of the album we learn that from the deepest edges of space ‘The Drum’ can be heard, endlessly repeating, without any understanding as to its reason or purpose. None of the greatest minds on earth nor governmental superpower can decipher its existence. Except one. As the listener journeys from the opening track to the last the album chronicles the voyage of Lukas and Vee as a new world is opened to not just the mind but the heart.


With its opening title track ‘Blueprint’ the album commences in wondrous form straddling euphoria and seduction at its heart, as it shoots for the stars setting up for a cosmic ballet. The atmospherical payoff of ‘Venera (Vee’s Theme)’ is enchantingly uplifting, as listeners have their first encounter with Vee. The vocal of Eric Lumiere adds depth to the character’s arrival with ‘Something To Believe In’ before ‘Edge Of The Skye’, featuring Haliene, ignites an odyssey to ‘A World Beyond’. The weaving metronomic build of ‘Trust’ is industriously rich and perfectly poised for this interstellar exploration. Whilst the otherworldly tones of ‘Lonely Inside’ beam us into the isolation of Space and renders all meaning beyond one emotion, desire. The sentiment on Haliene’s voice pierces through on the tense ‘Piece of You’ before we head into the third act and encounter “The Drum” again on ‘Drum's A Weapon’. The album majestically concludes with the beautiful combo of Haliene & Eric Lumiere on ‘Another Sunrise’ and the ‘Eternity’ with its Shepherd scale-esque splendour.


With the narrative that gives nods to the proses of iconic sci-fi authors such as Jules Verne, Hugo Gernsback and most distinctively HG Wells, whilst sharing familiarities with modern day shows such as The OA, Westworld and retro Sci-fi-fest Stranger Things, ‘Blueprint’ is an explorative piece of work that puts Sci-fi at its interstellar core. A brave and unique studio release from one of the most iconic artists in the electronic scene but Ferry’s attempts with ‘Blueprint’ are simply to bring a wider perspective to the listener, as he aims the album to be inclusive of dimensions of religion, history, ideals and science fiction.

Links:
http://www.ferrycorsten.com
http://www.vk.com/ferrycorsten
http://www.twitter.com/ferrycorsten
http://www.facebook.com/ferrycorsten
http://www.instagram.com/ferrycorsten