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

Now that my kids are older, gone are the days when all of us can squeeze into one hotel room. 😅 We need space. Lots and lots of it. And Pan Pacific Serviced Suites Orchard, Singapore offers that… and more.

Strategically located in Orchard Road, it has newly refurbished apartments with separate living and bedroom areas, kitchenette, washing machine & dryer and even eco-friendly In-room Filtered Water Taps, providing safe drinking water on demand. No need for bottled water. 😊

But I think the main draw has got to be the huge amount of space that our Two Bedroom Executive Suite offers - perfect for my family of 5. Smaller families or couples can go for the One Bedroom Deluxe Suite or One Bedroom Premium Suite (30% larger).

Facilities include a Hydro-Therapeutic Spa, fully- equipped Fitness Centre, Ionised Swimming Pool with Hydro-Rider Aqua Treadmill & Bicycle (yes, in the pool!) and a huge Lounge with free-flow coffee, massage chairs and X-Box Kinect! Now that’s what I call a staycation!!!

More details here: www.panpacific.com/en/serviced-suites/pp-ss-orchard.html

P.S. Because Pan Pacific Serviced Suites Orchard is a serviced residence and not a full-fledged hotel, there is a minimum stay requirement of 6 nights. So perhaps it’s more suited for the year-end holidays. If you are looking for a 1 or 2 night staycation, you can try the Pan Pacific Serviced Suites Beach Road instead. 😊

徵才機關：國立屏東科技大學
人員區分：其他人員
官職等：無
職系：無
名額：1
性別：不拘
工作地點：90-屏東縣
有效期間：110/06/24~110/06/30
資格條件：
國立屏東科技大學110學年度第1學期徵聘「研究人員」公告
(機電系統整合領域/校務基金進用)
（自本校通知報到日起聘） 公告日期：110年6月24日

■徵聘單位：研究總中心(機電系統整合領域)
■徵聘職稱：講師級研究員
■名額：1
■一般資格條件：
具教育部認可之國內、外車輛相關系所大學(含)以上學位。(以學士學位應聘者，應具六年以上相關工作經驗)
■專長領域或特殊資格條件(含研究著作要求)：
(機電系統整合)如同時具有以下能力者，尤佳：
1.三年以上從事車輛底盤及線路檢修和整車組裝之經驗。
2.具電動車檢修之經驗。
3.具農用電動車之開發與實作經驗。
4.具車輛變速箱檢修之經驗。
5.具車輛診斷儀操作及數據分析之經驗。
6.具四輪定位機操作及定位檢修之經驗。
7.具廠務和人員管理之經驗。

■Department：General Research Service Center
■Position：Lecturer Rank Research Fellow
■Vacancy：1
■General Requirement：A bachelor degree recognized by the Ministry of Education of the R.O.C. in relevant fields of vehicle engineering is required (The applicant with bachelor degree should have more than six years of relevant work experiences.)
■Specialization or Special Qualification(research and publication requirement included)：
Electromechanical System Integration. If applicants have the following criteria，it is particularly good.
1. A minimum of three years of experience on vehicle chassis overhaul, automotive wiring diagnosis and vehicle assembling.
2. Experience with electric vehicle overhaul.
3. Experience on the development and implementation of agriculture electric vehicle.
4. Experience with vehicle transmission overhaul.
5. Experience with vehicle diagnosis instrument operation and data analysis.
6. Experience with four-wheel alignment machine operation and positioning maintenance.
7. Experience with factory and personnel management.
>
工作項目：
■備註︰
一、以上應徵之「一般資格條件」，須於公告截止日前（110年6月30日）已具有學士(含)以上學位。
二、以上應徵之「專長領域獲特殊資格條件」中有關「實務工作經驗」之審核，本校將依教育部訂定公布「技專校院專業科目或技術科目之教師業界實務工作經驗認定標準」規定辦理。
三、報名期間︰自公告日起至110年6月30日止截止收件。
四、報名方式︰報名方式︰一律採書面方式報名，收件至報名截止日止。
(一)郵寄方式報名：以郵戳為憑，請寄送至91201屏東縣內埔鄉老埤村學府路1號，國立屏東科技大學人事室收。
(二) 親送方式報名：以本校人事室「職缺收件章」收件日期為憑，請於報名截止日前之本校工作日期間親送至本校行政中心二樓人事室，交由人事人員收執，並加蓋「職缺收件章」。
※ 應檢附之證件不齊或逾期者，均不予受理。
五、聯絡電話︰08-7703202轉分機6113 本校人事室盧先生。
六、應徵信封右上角請務必註明「應徵者姓名」及「應徵單位（領域）」；資格符合者由徵聘單位辦理後續審查事宜，不合者恕不退件及函復。如未獲錄取時需返還書面應徵資料，請附足額回郵信封以利郵寄。
七、報名需繳交表件︰(徵聘單位另有資料需求者，請依其需求辦理)
(一)現職工作佐證文件(國外任職證明文件須附中文譯本並經我國駐外單位驗證)。
(二)個人基本資料表（請詳細註明通訊地址、聯絡電話、行動電話及電子郵件信箱）。
(三)最近五年內著作一覽表。
(四)最高學歷畢業證書影本，畢業學校如係國外學歷須為教育部所認可且經我國駐外單位驗證有案者，須於公告截止日前取得之學歷始予採認。
(五)檢附相關實務工作經驗之證明文件影本。（須於公告截止日前之實務工作經驗始予採認）
(六)最高學歷歷年成績單影本，畢業學校如係國外學歷須為教育部所認可且經我國駐外單位驗證有案者。
(七)其他有利於聘審之資格證明文件。
(八)國立屏東科技大學個人資料蒐集聲明暨同意書。
※※（一 ~ 八）項資料請勿膠封，使用長尾夾固定成冊即可※※
八、請應徵者詳閱「本校個人資料蒐集聲明暨同意書」，確認同意相關事項後簽名，並隨同履歷資料繳件。
工作地址：
聯絡E-Mail：
聯絡方式：
九、前述第七項（1款）所需之「個人基本資料表(word檔案)」、「個人資料簡表(校務基金進用研究人員)(Excel檔案)」表格，刊登於本校首頁（網址：http://www.npust.edu.tw/）點選「徵才資訊」及人事室網站首頁（網址http://personnel.npust.edu.tw/bin/home.php）最新消息、徵才求職，請自行下載相關表格使用；其中有關「個人資料簡表.xlsx(Excel檔案)」，請另行以E-mail方式逕傳送以下相關系、所承辦人：
項目 單位 郵件信箱
(一) 研究總中心 grsc@g4e.npust.edu.tw
十、依「校務基金進用研究人員聘用辦法」規定：
(一)校務基金進用研究人員以編制外人員契約進用，其等級分為特聘級研究員、教授級研究員、副教授級研究員、助理教授級研究員及講師級研究員等五級（以下簡稱校務基金進用研究人員），其遴聘資格準用「大學研究人員聘任辦法」之規定。
(二)校務基金進用研究人員聘期，以一年一聘為原則，但計畫期限在一年以內者，應依實際所需時間聘用。
(三)聘期最長以三年為限，每年須依規定接受評鑑，其辦法另定之。
(四)用人單位辦理校務基金進用研究人員辦理續聘時，應提出聘用期間執行研究成果績效報告，並載明要求事項及檢據證明文件資料，提送校務基金進用研究人員評審委員會審議。
(五)校務基金進用研究人員於契約期間至少應參與一項研究計畫並於本校課程期間內每週實際授課2至4小時。
十一、應徵者之個人資料將用於本校此次徵聘研究人員之各項相關業務；且錄取後，將其個人資料供校務行政之用。
十二、本校聘任前依性侵害犯罪加害人登記報到查訪及查閱辦法第14條之規定，應申請查閱有無性侵害犯罪紀錄。
十三、本公告同時刊登於下列網站：
(一)行政院人事行政總處網址http://www.dgpa.gov.tw/點選「事求人」。
(二)本校首頁網址http://mportal.npust.edu.tw/bin/home.php 點選「求才資訊」。
(三)本校人事室網址http://personnel.npust.edu.tw/bin/home.php點選「最新消息」及「徵才求職區」。
(四)「全國就業通」網址https://www.taiwanjobs.gov.tw/Internet/index/index.aspx 點選「找工作」。
(五)「104人力銀行」網址https://www.104.com.tw/index.cfm。
(六)「教育部全國大專教育人才網」網址https://tjn.moe.edu.tw/index.php/點選「職缺訊息」。
(七)「科技部網站」網址https://www.most.gov.tw/?l=ch/點選「動態資訊/求才訊息」。

<<** 詳細內容請依人事室網站公告內容為基準 **>>
<<** 相關報名表格請至人事室網站最新消息及徵才求職區下載 **>>
<<** 人事室網址http://personnel.npust.edu.tw/bin/home.php >>
職缺類別：
不使用應徵者履歷調閱

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”

? ลองสด l GALAX GTX 1660 การ์ดจอระดับกลาง 7,090 บาท จะไหวกับ 240Hz ไหมนะ?

รีวิวเสร็จแจกไปเลย แชร์ให้ด้วย อย่าลืมร่วมกิจกรรมด้วยละที่ปักหมุดในเพจ ADBIG

ออกแบบมาสำหรับการเล่นเกมระดับ 1080p
มีเทคโนโลยีเข้ารหัสสตรีมสด NVENc ที่ดีกว่าเดิม
ประสิทธิภาพสูงกว่า GTX 1060 อยู่พอสมควร
กินไฟไม่เยอะ อัพเกรดกับเครื่องเก่าๆ ได้สบาย

สเปค GALAX GTX 1660 (1-Click OC) 6GB GDDR6
• CUDA Cores 1408
• 1-Click OC Clock (MHz) 1815
• Memory Interface Width 192-bit GDDR5
• Standard Display Connectors DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI
• Maximum Graphics Card Power (W) 120W
• Minimum System Power Requirement (W) 450W
• Supplementary Power Connectors 6-pin
• รับประกัน 3 ปี โดย Ascenti Thailand

今次又去同一個地方，會唔會悶親大家？
如果你望望條片就知道今次去搞搞震，想知搞乜，咁就要去片。

另設Facebook群組Hi Fi 發燒圈，歡迎加入：
https://www.facebook.com/groups/454356881290493/

#音響 #發燒圈 #Lee388 #HiFi #Cello #粵語youtuber

The Audio Palette
Richard S. Burwen developed the concept for the Audio Palette. Burwen found that certain tone control adjustments were necessary to obtain the most natural, lifelike sound from recordings.
Cello has identified the major cause of sonic problems in recordings as the tonal balance that has been adjusted by the recording and mastering engineers in the studio. Each engineer uses a monitoring system that is unique. Because the tonal balance of each system is different, each recording is different. Engineers primarily use equalization to optimize tonal balance for the best sound on their system.

The Audio Palette advances musical realism more than any other single component. Tonal balance can be corrected from the most delicate and subtle adjustments for the best recordings, to the most extreme and dramatic adjustments for vintage material, in order to restore the vitality and life to recordings of music without sonic deterioration.

The Audio Palette is used by record companies, mastering laboratories, and also by discriminating home listeners.

Product Specifications:

The Standard Version of the Audio Palette has one (1) Fischer 3-pin balanced input. The Multiple Input Version (M.I.V.) Audio Palette total of four (4) inputs, one (1) Fischer 3-pin balanced and three (3) single ended.

One (1) set of single ended and one (1) set of Fischer 3-pin balanced main outputs are provided.

Two (2) sets of single ended record outputs are provided.

Frequency Adjustment Controls:
25 kHz control: +/- 24 dB in 1.00 dB increments
5 kHz control: +/- 12 dB in 0.50 dB increments
2 kHz control: +/- 6 dB in 0.25 dB increments
500 Hz control: +/- 6 dB in 0.25 dB increments
120 Hz control: +/- 14.5 dB in 0.50 dB increments
15 Hz control: +/- 29 dB in 1.00 dB increments

Dimensions:
19"w / 7.4"h / 14.1"d (Audio Palette)
19"w / 3.9"h / 8.5"d (Master Supply)

Shipping Weight:
41 lbs. (Audio Palette)
35 lbs. (Master Supply)

Grand Masters
Like the concert grand piano, the Grand Master is the largest model. Elegant in dimension, each Grand Master is a towering cabinet with eight tweeters, eight midranges, and two 12" woofers. These drivers allow for a great quantity of air to be moved quickly, achieving not only very low distortion but a staggering 127-dB SPL peak capability.
Since no single driver is required to overwork, a completely effortless reproduction is evident on even the most demanding musical passages.

Product Specifications:

Tweeters:
3/4" (8)

Midranges:
2" (8)

Woofers:
12" (2)

Design:
Acoustic Suspension

Minimum Power Requirement:
200 watts per channel

Impedance:
2 ohms (nominal)
1 ohm (minimal)

Crossover Frequencies:
500 Hz, 5000 Hz

SPL:
127 dB

Efficiency:
96 dB

Dimensions:
17"w / 86.5"h / 18"d

Weight:
500 lbs. each

The Performance Amplifier II
The Performance Amplifier is a four chassis set, comprised of two mono power supplies and two mono power amplifiers.
The Performance Amplifier includes many engineering features exclusive to Cello, which together provide unparalleled speed, clarity, impact, natural tone quality and reliability.

Each amplifier chassis has a balanced audio input, balanced bridging output, and four sets of barrier strip outputs. Three pin Fischer connectors are used to provide balanced line audio connections of the highest quality.

The cost of the Performance Amplifier reflects Cello's insistence on the most innovative circuitry and premium parts.

The Performance Amplifier offers a combination of sonic purity, power, build quality, freedom from obsolescence, and flexibility that makes a new level of musical integrity and system performance possible.

Product Specifications:

Power Output (single amp):
@8 Ohms Rated: 200 Watts
@4 Ohms Rated: 400 Watts

Red Bull Air Race - The Game is the no.1 air racing game worldwide!
Brand new 2015 season. New planes, new pilots, new locations and two new types of tournaments, the 2015 Virtual World Championship & Regional World Tournaments !

Race to new limits with this breathtaking new 2015 update. Faster planes, bold new pilots and breathtaking new locations take you on the flight of your life.

It takes using speed, precision and skill to claim victory in the global Red Bull Air Race Championship. Strap yourself in and download today!

PILOT TRAINING TO MASTER CLASS
Quickly progress from Challenger Pilot to the Master Class across 200+ races, events and real pilot head to head rounds.

STUNNING LOCATIONS
Fly through a huge single player campaign and fierce regional tournaments all set in spectacular international locations.

PILOT THE BEST PLANES
Fly the fastest racing planes in the world. Designed to be as agile in the air as possible and streamlined to perfection. Visit the new hangar to improve your plane’s performance with plenty of modifications!

Each pilot has their own specially engineered plane and custom paint job.

NEW REGIONAL TOURNAMENTS AND THE 2015 VIRTUAL WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP
Will you join us on the podium this year?

Have you got what it takes to race alongside the Master Class pilots? Fly each of the eight virtual racetracks as the real life battle unfolds throughout the season and show us you’ve got what it takes to win a World Championship.

As we cross the globe to compete on three continents, you can play the official ‘Red Bull Air Race – The Game’ and can test your skills by racing online as the action happens in real life at each of the stops.

The 2015 Virtual World Championship starts as we head to Chiba in Japan and winners of each round will win an exclusive prize from the Master Class pilot who takes the victory. The overall virtual World Champion will also be invited to Las Vegas to take their place on the podium and experience the thrill of a real flight in the racetrack!

We’re excited to see just how good the world’s best virtual pilots are! You’re officially cleared into the track…

FLY LIKE A PRO
Touch or Tilt controls, you decide. Effortlessly supports multiple control configurations for tilt and touchscreen. Accelerate, bank and pull vertical turns to earn a spot on the Red Bull Air Race podium.

BUILT FOR MOBILE, AMAZING ON YOUR TABLET OR PHONE
Vivid graphics, incredible speed. One universal game perfect for your mobile device. Experience the thrilling victory of the Red Bull Air Race wherever you are.

IMPORTANT
Minimum requirement: 1GB Ram
Minimum Android OS: 4.1 or newer
Minimum screen resolution: 800x480

Recommended:
Android device manufactured in 2013 or newer

If you encounter any issue please contact us at http://games.redbull.com/at/de/site/contact

Do you have what it takes? Visit http://www.redbullairrace.com/thegame

****************************************­******
Appgame.in.th (แอพเกม) เว็บเกมมือถืออันดับ 1 ของไทย ข่าวสารเกมฟรี, เกมฮิต, เกมดัง และ รีวิวเกม

เป็นกำลังใจโดยการ Subscribe: http://bit.ly/AppgameSub
Website: http://Appgame.in.th
Facebook: http://Facebook.com/AppgameThailand
Instagram: http://Instagram.com/AppgameThailand
Twitter: http://twitter.com/AppgameThailand