Search
I do the same thing I told you that I never would 😁
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
#抖音 #抖音短视频 #抖音有毒 #抖音上瘾 #抖音精选 #抖音上癮 #抖音短視頻 #抖音视频 #抖音歌曲 #cover #吉他 #吉他彈唱 #彈唱 #stay #justinbieber #thekidlaroi #guitar #acoustic
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”
How to be Worthy to Escape the Tribulation?
“Therefore be watchful all the time, praying that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will happen, and to stand before the Son of Man.”” (Luke 21:36 WEB)
“Counted worthy” in the original Greek is “katischuó” which means to prevail against or to overpower.
How do we prevail and overcome this world?
“For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world: your faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 John 5:4-5 WEB)
Jesus didn’t mean that you have to pray all the time so that hopefully when the Rapture happens, you would be found worthy at that moment because you were praying and not committing a sin.
No that’s not what He means at all. In fact, Jesus told us to be watchful all the time not out of fear of sudden destruction, but to be excited at the signs of His impending return.
Just as a bride watchfully peers at the window when she knows that her groom is coming at a certain hour, it is the same for us when we see all the end times signs in the world today.
The only way we escape all the terrible things that will happen to this world during the Tribulation is by being born-again.
Through faith in Jesus, we are born-again as a new creation in Christ. Only this new creation will be caught up to be with Him at His return. It will be an amazing reunion in the clouds.
Our vile bodies will be transformed into glorified bodies, and we will never be sick, weak, or ugly ever again. We will be like Jesus, having a glorified body, soul, and spirit.
Don’t listen to those load you up with heavy religious burdens that they don’t even keep themselves when no one is looking.
“Don’t sin, if not you will miss the Rapture!” They like to frighten you with nonsense like that. A person who is always talking about sin is struggling with sin himself. He is so focused on it and the condemnation of failing by the flesh causes the cycle of sin and defeat to repeat in his own life.
It is not our Bible reading, praying ten times a day, fasting, tithing, or keeping the Ten Commandments that makes us eligible for the Rapture.
As long as you are born-again through faith in Jesus, which is a once-in-a-lifetime event, you will be going up when Jesus comes down!
God is looking at the type of creature, not the state of the creature. When you pass a magnet across a pile of metal paper clips and wooden pegs, only the paper clips will be attracted to the magnet. It doesn’t matter what shape the paper clips are bent into, or how old and beaten up the paper clips are. As long as they are metal, they will get attracted.
As long as you are a new creation in Christ, and not a son of Adam (unbeliever who is still dead in his sins) you will be going up once Jesus calls for His saints to meet Him in the air. Your spiritual growth and good works done are important for accessing your heavenly rewards, but they are not a factor at all to decide if you will be going up at the Rapture or not.
Jesus harshly rebuked the religious hypocrites (the chief priests, Pharisees, and scribes) so let us not be like them.
There is only one thing that can make you worthy to escape all the tribulations: the shed blood of Christ. His precious blood washed you, qualifying you to escape all the punishments of God and to freely receive all the good things that Jesus deserves.
“But when these things begin to happen, look up, and lift up your heads, because your redemption is near.”” (Luke 21:28 WEB)
Expect to escape all these things. Jesus can come back any day now. Look up, for your bodily redemption is near!!
In “Understand the Four Gospels Through the Lens of Grace”, I take the difficult passages that have been taught legalistically and plain wrongly, and show the true meanings of Jesus’ words based on the correct context. You will heave a great sign of relief when you believe right because there is only good from God in your future. He has no anger nor punishment for you!
Get the four-eBook bundle “Understand the Four Gospels Through the Lens of Grace” at sale price and receive a bonus eBook “Understand the Book of Acts Through the Lens of Grace” so you can see what happened and the ministry of the Holy Spirit beyond the cross: https://bit.ly/understandeveryparable
(日本語は自動翻訳の部分もあります)
Hello, I am umino.Thank you for watching this video.This description uses Google Translate.
In this video, I scratch the microphone. There are about 10 types of sound. There are some bonuses. Depending on the person, the sound may be better. If you have a favorite sound, please give me a comment.
このビデオでは、マイクを引っ掻きます。 音の種類は約10種類。 いくつかのボーナスがあります。 人によっては音の方がいいかもしれません。 好きな音があればコメントをお願いします。
I don't think everyone knows I'm talking in subtitles, so I'll write something similar in the summary section.
私が字幕で話していることを誰もが知っているとは思わないので、要約セクションで同様のことを書きます。
First, I'm explaining the reason for the useless long greeting. Actually, this video was made by connecting two video materials. I thought that it would be a thin video if it was one by one. I regretted that I didn't need to connect when I was editing.
最初に、無駄な長いあいさつの理由を説明します。 実はこの動画は2つの動画素材を繋げて作られています。 一つ一つだと薄い動画だと思いました。 編集中は接続する必要がなかったのが残念でした。
In Japan, connecting something with something is called a gamchinpo ガッチンポ. Let's try it with a gesture like PPAP.
日本では、何かを何かに接続することを、ガムチンポガッチンポと呼びます。 PPAPのようなジェスチャーで試してみましょう。
I also tell you that the ones I've used in the video aren't more than half an earpick. It doesn't matter what you use if it sounds good. On the contrary, if it looks like it, it also becomes ASMR. That is, anything can be an ASMR.
私がビデオで使用したものは耳かきの半分以下であることも言います。 良さそうであれば、何を使用してもかまいません。 逆にこんな感じならASMRにもなります。 つまり、ASMRは何でもかまいません。
I also talked about the Japanese entertainment world. It's a really fucking world. Match pump, GORIOSHI, you can do whatever you want.
日本のエンターテインメントの世界についても話しました。 それは本当にクソ世界です。 マッチポンプゴリオシ好きなことができます。
One talent left the office, and the old lady talent told him. "There are many alternatives to you in the entertainment world." This seems to be the reason for the entertainment world. It's the same on YouTube though.
1人の才能がオフィスを去り、老婦人の才能が彼に言った。 「エンターテインメントの世界には、あなたに代わるものがたくさんあります。」 これがエンターテインメントの世界の理由のようです。 YouTubeでも同じです。
I thought the same thing with the old lady. And to me too. There are many alternatives out there. There will be many people who want to become something that cannot be replaced.
私は老婦人と同じことを考えました。 そして私にも。 そこに多くの選択肢があります。 取り替えることのできないものになりたいという人はたくさんいるでしょう。
What did I talk about? I've edited it recently, but I've forgotten it. Human memory is ephemeral.
私は何について話しましたか？ 最近編集しましたが、忘れてしまいました。 人間の記憶は短命です。
By the way, I talked about Gun Gun Gurutoぐんぐんグルト. Everyone will not know about this drink. Didn't you even know that it was a drink? The person who understands is a genius, let's praise.
ちなみに、ガンガングルトぐんぐんグルトについて話しました。 誰もがこの飲み物を知らないでしょう。 飲み物だって知らなかったの？ わかる人は天才です、ほめましょう。
The drink tempted me as a junior high school student. If you are a young person, you have taken advantage of the troubles that everyone has.
その飲み物は中学生の私を誘惑した。若者ならみんなが持ってる悩みにつけこんだんだ。
It's height. Everyone wants height. I want to be big. Height and humanity. A tall man is popular in Japan for some reason. A woman is coming around the big guy. There is no such injustice... I thought so when I was young.
それは身長さ。みんな誰だって身長が欲しいんだ。でっかくなりたい。身長的にも、人間的にもね。高身長の人間は日本では何故かモテる。デカいやつの周りに女が寄ってくるんだ。こんな不公平はない…若い時の私はそう思った。
Yeah, I have to talk about GUNGUNGURUTO. The drink has a catch phrase that says "height grows". To be precise, I think it is just a lactic acid bacterium drink. I've found out through my research. The drink I wanted to say was Cenobee. I want to dogeza for GUNGUNGURUTO.
そうだ、GUNGUNGURUTOの話をしなきゃね。その飲み物は「身長が伸びる」みたいなことをキャッチコピーにしてるんだ。正確にはただの乳酸菌飲料だと思う。調べて分かったことがあるんだ。私が言いたかった飲み物はセノビーだった。GUNGUNGURUTOにはDOGEZAしたい。
Well, the subtitles say something silly. You thought you didn't have to read it separately?
まあ字幕にはくだらないことが書いてあるんだ。「別に読まなくていいや」と思っただろう？
Good night. Oyasumino.
Timestamp
0:00 プレビュッビュッ
5:04 めんだま
10:26 ミニブシラ
17:55 デカメンボ
23:01 メイクシラブ
27:56 バーケーバーケー
33:08 歯ブラシの臭そう感は異常
38:18 ただのモーーール
44:17 ククククレンジング、ククククレンジング、ククククレンジングなブラシ
49:42 ステンレスは何パターンかあるぞ
イヤホンまたはヘッドホンをつけてお楽しみください。もし動画が良かったら高評価を押していただけると励みになります。
SNS
Twitter: https://goo.gl/Y9uFpW
Twitter(通知用): https://goo.gl/WHEa8c
Instagram: https://goo.gl/sL8M1r
サブチャンネル: https://goo.gl/C7yDgn
無劣化音声の購入はこちらから
https://bit.ly/2ktOOjm
Copyright © 2017 UMINO ASMR All Rights Reserved.
Hello my marvelous Moon Pies ??✨ My name is Rose and welcome to my channel where I feature covers, originals, and vlogs. If you enjoy my content, please subscribe so we can grow into one big family! ?
Before anyone says anything, yes, this is an old video. However, the message I wanted to portray is still the same so I wanted to upload it now.
Here's the thing: When I was 18... I didn't know much about life. No one truly ever explained what life after high school was going to be like. They just expected you to know these things and never told you the outcome. The reason I wanted to make this video is so that my fellow young adults don't make the same mistakes that I did. I didn't mention it in the video but GO AFTER YOUR DREAMS! Don't let school and college ruin you. College is a great way to connect and socialize with people, but you can meet numerous friends along the way. Save your money because it will TRULY help you when the first three years of your 20's. Don't give your time away so easily to people just because you're bored or they're bored. Focus on yourself, I mean it. I don't mean study but hone in on your skill set and practice practice practice. Travel when you can but save at least an emergency fund of $1000-$2000. Don't have regrets.
If I were to go back in time, I would finish school just to say I did it. I wouldn't have taken out student loans. I wouldn't have moved out until I was 21. I'd put away 10% of every dollar I earned. I would have continued doing music and my YouTube back then. I just wish I spent more time on myself back then instead of trying so hard to grow up so quickly. I didn't get to enjoy my young years because I was so money hungry and quick to be an "adult". If you're 18, don't do what I did. I know you "hate" being at home and your parents are "annoying". But I grew up away from my parents. I wished I stayed with my relatives at least because it would have prevented me from screwing up at ages 19/20. I'd also save a ton of money from just living at home.
#lifelesson #whenIwas18 #advice
NEW Posting Times:
Sunday @ 9am
Tuesday @ 9am
Thursday @9am
Purchase my eBook/Book ^.^
The Journey: A Guide to Finding You Again
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07YZW9HTS/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_os4VEbP1MDVYG
ASMR YouTube Channel:
FoodTimeRose ASMR
Camera:
Sony RX100M6
Editing Program:
Final Cut Pro
GarageBand
Microphone:
Blue Snowball
SkullCandy Headphones
Follow me on:
Instagram: @foodtimerose
Instagram: @itsrose.liketheflower
TikTok: @itsrose.liketheflower
Venmo: itsrosemun
Shop:
IG @hybridzclothing
www.hybridzclothing.com
HybridzClothing@gmail.com
Blog:
Callmerose.home.blog
Business Inquires:
Rosannamun@gmail.com
———————————————
Affiliate Links:
Want straighter teeth?
For ONLY $25, you can!
Sign Up below:
https://glnk.io/itsroseliketheflower
Duvolle® - 70% OFF PROMO CODE: CALLMEROSE
Duvolle® Desire Series Styling Iron: $28.50 https://duvolle.com/desire-series-styling-iron/
Duvolle® Desire Series 32mm Curling Wand $28.50 https://duvolle.com/desire-series-32mm-curling-wand/
Duvolle® Desire Series 25mm Curling Wand $28.50 https://duvolle.com/desire-series-25mm-curling-wand/
#vlogger #lifeupdate #quarantinevlog
Allen Iverson calmly sank two free throws, and the magic number flashed on the scoreboard: 50 points.
The last time he did it, people had a problem with it.
This time, it was a milestone that showed how much things have changed.
Iverson tied his career high and made a mockery of his showdown with Sacramento's Jason Williams as the 76ers beat the Kings 119-108.
Iverson's performance was reminiscent of the one in Cleveland three years ago when he put up 50 in the city where he was booed during the rookie game at All-Star weekend.
Now, his team is in position to make the playoffs for the second straight season after an eight-year drought, and Iverson is finally shedding his reputation as a selfish showman who cares only about stats.
He was roundly criticized for his string of 40-point games as a rookie, accused of padding his stats in a push for the Rookie of the Year award--which he won.
Iverson's response this time: "I don't mind taking 40 shots. That's what I do."
"I played that game like it was my last when I was a rookie and scored 50," said Iverson, who equaled the most points scored in the NBA this season. "I did the same thing tonight, just like I do every night. And we won."
Iverson, approaching his first All-Star game, had a slew of incredible numbers: A career-high 20 field goals and 40 attempts, nine rebounds and six assists.
He favorite stat was the one that goes in the standings. Unlike his other 50-point game, the Sixers won.
"Regardless of whether I score 50 points or five points, I'm going to play as hard as I can," Iverson said. "I'm going to play every game like it's my last. I've been saying it since I got here. Regardless if the shots go in or not, I'm going to play hard."
Williams, the Kings' flashy point guard, had 14 points on 5-for-16 shooting and was not a factor in the outcome or the highlight reel.
Both realms belonged to Iverson, who scored 50 for the first time since he became the first rookie since Wilt Chamberlain to have four straight 40-point games. He had 50 on April 12, 1997, in a 125-118 loss to Cleveland.
Iverson scored 12 in the first quarter, 15 in the second, 12 in the third and 11 in the fourth. The Sixers improved to 3-10 in his career when he scores 40 or more.
"He took 40 shots?" said an incredulous Chris Webber, who led Sacramento with 32 points and 15 rebounds. "He made a lot of them, though."
Sixers coach Larry Brown didn't mind the 40 shots, either.
"I played with Rick Barry, and a lot of guys would mumble about the number of shots he takes," Brown said. "And his remark was, 'Half you guys can't get 40 shots.' And I think it's justified. I think it's a remarkable thing that Allen can do that most nights and not look like he lost anything."
It was quite a show witnessed by Philadelphia's fourth sellout crowd this season--including comedian Bill Cosby--and a national TV audience.
"It's nice to see Allen play well in a TV game," Brown said. "There was a time we were never on it, and the reason we're on it now is because we've won a couple of games and Allen's on the team."
Webber fouled out on a dizzying play that produced the two free throws that gave Iverson 50 points. With Philadelphia leading 107-102 and Iverson sitting on 48 points, he knifed into the lane and got his shot blocked as the clock approached the one-minute mark. Eric Snow clapped for him to give up the ball, but Iverson went back into the lane and drew Webber's sixth foul.
Brown motioned to his star with two hands to settle down. After a timeout, Iverson sank both free throws to hit 50 points, giving the Sixers a 109-102 lead with 1:37 left.
Snow had 11 points, 13 assists and no turnovers in what Brown,a former point guard, called "about the best game a point guard can have."
Iverson also hit 50 at the foul line three years ago in Cleveland, but under very different circumstances. He'd been booed when winning the rookie game MVP trophy in Cleveland, and was booed again on that April night. The Sixers were on their way to a 22-60 season.
Iverson had been so worried about the crowd reaction he'd receive in Cleveland that he called his mother, Ann, and told her not to attend the game. He said those thoughts were far away Sunday.
"I wasn't even paying attention," Iverson said. "I was just playing my game."
Notes: Iverson matched the Kings' total of 12 in the third as Philadelphia led 88-73. He scored 27 in the first half as the Sixers led by as many as 14. ... The Kings' eight-game road trip also matched a franchise high. The Cincinnati Royals were 3-5 in 1968-69, and the Kings were 3-5 in 1986-87.
