關於 back to you again you are just a friend ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Restoration for your Own Mistakes

Perhaps you are thinking, “Yes I know I can expect restoration when the devil attacks me or if I am persecuted. But I am suffering now because of my own mistake. Surely I cannot expect God to restore me? I will have to suffer and pay for my mistake.”

Well, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is called the good news because it is really undeserved favor. Even if you are suffering losses from your own mistakes, you can still expect to receive restoration that is better in quality and/or quantity than before.

I know it sounds too good to be true, but I am not just making that up. Look at Abraham’s story. He told his wife Sarah to lie to everyone in Gerar that she was only his sister.

He did this because Sarah had been renewed in her youth and was exceedingly beautiful. Abraham was afraid that if the people knew that she was his wife, they would kill him and take her for themselves.

After hearing that Sarah was only Abraham’s sister, the king of Gerar, Abimelech, took Sarah into his harem.

Reading this story, it is clear that Abraham is the one at fault. He lied that Sarah was only his sister, and his lies stemmed from cowardice and self-preservation, endangering Sarah’s chastity.

Yet, when God wanted to save Sarah from being violated, He threatened Abimelech and his family with death if he decided not to restore Sarah to Abraham.

“God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also withheld you from sinning against me. Therefore I didn’t allow you to touch her. Now therefore, restore the man’s wife. For he is a prophet, and he will pray for you, and you will live. If you don’t restore her, know for sure that you will die, you, and all who are yours.”” (Genesis‬ ‭20:6-7‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Shouldn’t it be Abraham who was threatened with death for his cowardice and lies? This is God’s Grace towards the righteous ones who are justified by faith. Even if you make a mistake, God is not punishing you for your sins—His heart is to restore you for the negative consequences of your wrong actions.

What does restore “the man’s wife” mean? Is it just to give Sarah back to Abraham? Let us examine what Abimelech did:

“Abimelech took sheep and cattle, male servants and female servants, and gave them to Abraham, and restored Sarah, his wife, to him. Abimelech said, “Behold, my land is before you. Dwell where it pleases you.” To Sarah he said, “Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver. Behold, it is for you a covering of the eyes to all that are with you. In front of all you are vindicated.”” (Genesis‬ ‭20:14-16‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Wow, instead of just giving Sarah back to Abraham, Abimelech gave sheep, cattle, servants, land and a thousand pieces of silver to Abraham. Even though Abraham was the originator of the problem, he was enriched through his mistake.

This is what God’s restoration looks like. You never just get the same thing back. It will always be better in quality and/or quantity when He restores you for your losses.

Even though Abraham made mistakes in his life, he had a great relationship with God, such that the Scriptures call him “a friend of God”. Whenever God appeared and spoke to him, he paid attention, delighting in the words and meditated on them.

An example of this would be God’s promise to him that he would have a son who was born of Sarah. Abraham never gave up on that promise, and eventually, he received the fulfillment of it.

“Blessed is the man who doesn’t walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand on the path of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in Yahweh’s law. On his law he meditates day and night. He will be like a tree planted by the streams of water, that produces its fruit in its season, whose leaf also does not wither. Whatever he does shall prosper.” (Psalms‬ ‭1:1-3‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Although we are born-again and our spirits are righteous, holy and perfect like Jesus, we still live in this body of sinful flesh. Sometimes we get confused, thinking that the fleshly impulses and thoughts are our own. This causes us to make mistakes.

However, if you have a heart for God’s word like Abraham did, even the mistakes you unwittingly make will prosper. What you did may not be good, but God can still turn things around for your good because He is for you, not against you. Since you are righteous in Christ, you can expect to receive restoration for your losses, even if they were caused by your own mistakes!

Learn God’s plan to prosper you in all things through His restoration. If you have lost in any way, you can expect to gain much more/better back. This eBook, “All Things Made New”, may be the most comprehensive book about God’s restoration:
https://bit.ly/prosper-through-restoration

《Back to One》album track 3 - Walls and Bridges

When the world is disconnected, we can still always find each other somehow. That’s what friends are for. For my best friend @franciswongny

Walls and Bridges
(Music and lyrics: Chet Lam)

You never liked the walls of the classroom
We used to run around outside, the views from the bridges were always more beautiful
We knew the real obstacle in the world is ourselves not being brave enough
I remembered your determination
How you carried the fear and hope for the future

Waiting is always too long
Saying farewell is always too short
before we part, please give me some strength

I sincerely wish
That the world can see the kindness that I see in your eyes
When you fall down you’ll be okay in just a while
The waiting time between love would not get longer and longer
And you have strength to build bridge after bridge to get through the walls

Strange rapport, illogical longing for each other
Unharmful curse words, shameless bragging about ourselves
Who falls out of love again
We let each other be upset out of portion
Who has too much ambition
We tell each other the truths without holding back

I sincerely wish
That the world can see the kindness that I see in your eyes
When you fall down you’ll be okay in just a while
The waiting time between love would not get longer and longer
And you have strength to build bridge after bridge to get through the walls

Piano by @longchingg
Flutes by me

————————————-

《思源》專輯第三首：牆與橋

上次在紐約幾天朋友短聚，有人問我新專輯有沒有關於Francis的歌。我說：有一首咁多啦～～ 歌詞描述的細節當然有出入，感覺卻一樣。在世界斷了連接的時候，就靠音樂把我們連在一起吧。

牆與橋
（曲詞：林一峰）

我認識的你 從來不喜歡課室的牆
跟你到處跑 橋上看的風景更漂亮
世上真正的阻力 是自己不夠勇敢
我記得你的堅決 對未來恐懼也嚮往

等待永遠太長 道別永遠太短
東南西北四散之前 請給我一點力量

我衷心希望
世界可以看到我眼中你的善良
跌倒時 過一會你就無恙
距離下一次心跳不會越來越長
有力量 築起橋 翻過每道牆

莫名其妙的默契 不合邏輯的牽掛
無傷大雅的髒話 太不要臉的自誇
誰人又失戀了 就讓誰把傷心放大
誰人滿腹大計 有人會對他說真話

我衷心的希望
世界可以看到我眼中你的善良
跌倒時 過一會你就無恙
距離下一次心跳不會越來越長
有力量 築起橋 翻過每道牆

Link here: https://instabio.cc/BackToOne

#BackToOne #思源 #牆與橋

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”

This clip is from: Joseph Prince—God Loves To Exceed Your Expectations Toward You (3 Jul 2016) @josephprince

We know not every relationship works out. For those who are in the midst of heartbreak, you may be wondering if the pain will ever end and if there’s anything left to look forward to.

In the midst of your pain, know that Jesus Himself is with you. He knows every bit of rejection, heartache and loss that you experience (see Ps. 56:8) and He hurts just as you hurt (Isa. 63:9 MSG). It isn't weakness or failure to experience pain. Friend, you can allow yourself to feel, process, and pour out your heart to Him. Most of all, allow Jesus to meet you in your place of pain and love you as you are—snot, puffy eyes and all. Just as the loving Shepherd left the ninety-nine sheep to look for the one precious sheep who was out there, alone, hurt and lost, your loving Savior is here to scoop you out of the mess that you might find yourself stuck in.

Today, would you allow Him to lift you onto His back, carry you when you feel you can’t go on, and to love you perfectly till you're healed and whole again (see Ps. 147:3)? The Lord promises that while weeping may endure for a night, joy comes in the morning (see Ps. 30:5). In Him, you have hope that true love, joy, and shalom peace await you. And in due time, we know He will lead you into it, one step at a time. ??

–
Decibel.one: A digital magazine and online channel by Joseph Prince Ministries. Check out at https://decibel.one/ for more grace-centered content.

Stay Connected –

Decibel Website: https://decibel.one/
Decibel Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dcbl.one/
Decibel Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/decibel.one/

#decibelone #decibel #JosephPrince

紀錄片: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dw_kid12/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/deepwebkid/?modal=admin_todo_tour

訂閱: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKC6E5s6CMT5sVBInKBbPDQ?sub_confirmation=1

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/album/2LjUOH9T9j21GiX8jzytu6
異度空間恐怖APP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PiyPZ3d_Fw&t=12s

首支單曲: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UASHWB6Ai9Y

鬼故事: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CfqxuCHq3Y&t=3s

我的成長故事: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kdhtp6A6YJE

我講 '香港' 10,000次: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G4uDe3QUfs

我受夠了, 我的精神困擾: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ6uxaQhiS4&t=7s

24小時內學印度話: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3EmtyVK1BQ&t=55s


回憶我兩年前拍過的虐畜影片
拍虐畜影片這些事 (我的親身經歷)

2017年11月到2018年6月是我拍片生崖當中, 我所稱為 ‘尷尬期’ 的時段. 我當時是想由拍英文鬼故頻道影片同時希望轉型生活類型影片和講東話影片. 出來的效果就是一大堆又煩又cho又不好笑又沒人看又常常得罪人的誇張內容. 不要要求我給你看, 因為這些影片現時已被刪除.

暗網仔出街的觀眾大家好! 我今天想懺悔當中拍了一部I feel ashamed and guilty i ever did it. 在這裡講這段故事改變不了什麼也叫不回所造成的傷害. 大家也歡迎看完這條影片之後不再支持我. 但我怕今天不拍出這條片我日後不會講出這個故事但uw yeen會想起而後fooy. 多謝你們給我一個機會去講.
神父 我有罪!

[跟倉鼠生活48小時]
2018年6月16號我上載了一條養一隻倉鼠兩天的影片. 長達8分27秒的影片嘗試混合 ‘實驗型’ 影片和 ‘?物型’ 影片, 完全為了拿views. 由那兩天不同的時間點去講做寵物主人難chui, lut look的地方. Suen便搞笑.
影片一開頭去商店買倉鼠是我第一次拍攝時被質問的情況, 挺值得講. 因為只是照顧兩天的關係倉鼠生活的環境完全不理想, 只是放他在買回來的箱子中生活. 因為影片需要新鮮感我會在不同時間拍他還有不同地點去拍他. 當時我完全沒有意圖繼續yoing這隻小動物, 所以最後過了48小時我轉yoing比我更有愛心的兄弟yoing. 幾個月後這位倉鼠也離開了我們.

上載這條影片後有網友説每一次拍這隻小動物的時候他樣子也很害怕和焦慮. 由Muk生環境加上我每次突然間的拍攝引起. 但當時chuw luw的我只是當這個小生命跟拍片的工具沒兩分別. What are you doing man? Having to watch this video now makes me suffer. Hing hung當時這些影片沒有人看, 否則我一定繼續拍下去.

其實我記得小時候的我挺有愛心的. 9到11歲有yoing一隻倉鼠的我, 有pet這樣東西在童年也jim一個挺重要的部分.
我記得當年su假我去了香港leuy hung. 原本我媽媽應該照顧我隻chung mut. 之後她無la la又自己由加拿大飛去香港將我隻倉鼠交給一班挺Heartless的family friend. 我是說他們全家. 我當時knew something bad was going to happen because they tried to like tried to use a hose to spray my hamster before and torture and have a history of treating animals like not lives. I remember my mom went back before me and she said when she got my pet back he was so quiet and in a few days died. He was abused, my mom even said so herself.
I couldn’t even see his last time and he was buried. I remember getting off the plane crying in the shower. After when I talked about everyone just laughed at me and called it just a pet. And everyone pretended like nothing happened, next topic. But for a time he was my best friend.

Ever since that day I never bonded with animals again, because I was like: they are just animals. Like garbage. But it’s not true. They are living beings and friends. And I see that now.

I think I’m feeling like this because the way I treated the hamster is the way my hamster died. And I feel guilty for my childhood and now.
That’s why I needed to Film this video today.
[my first pet]


[owning a pet for views, the good way and the bad way to do it.]

I want to start by acknowledging their are good youtubers who raise pets. And I feel the key to doing this properly is to really in your heart, feel that connection to the pet. Not use it for views.
我有follow一位叫yanki, 即是火guy姐的女生常常post有關animal abuse這個問題. She constantly does it and reminds everyone it is a huge problem. Suey yeen我之前拍那一條影片某ching do上是這方面一個不好的教材. 但我現在可以做的是下面有一條link是一個有關這方面的documentary, roing大家了解更多. 也希望世間上所有ley hoi的小倉鼠也可以得到安息吧! Bye bye.

"My advocacies would always be about mental health awareness. I'm creating and establishing Macky Academy for the future of our young talented Filipinos kids and youths. And helping Filipino people, one person at a time."

Update: As of July 30, 2020, I have spent 190,000 Pesos and sent our fellowmen in the Philippines to help them get by. If you would like to donate to my advocacy please send me an email: hello@mackysuson.com

Your support and donation will help a lot of our fellowmen during this crisis. Sharing this video is also your support to everyone.

#MackyQuotes
Live to me is more spontaneous and I'm able to show my real feelings without editing it or worrying about commiting mistakes, any words at all. "

"Recording makes me feel I have to be perfect."

Yana Sy "I'm always thankful and happy that I'm back in the field and I'm always grateful about that one."

"It's not about passing. I'm able to do things that I'm supposed to do."

"I'm just happy,blessed,and grateful about it."

"I was focused on people giving pieces of advice and helping people on Facebook, appears it from prizes, gcash and load. I'm happy doing that. "

"I was really happy doing that sense I believe it became my therapy."

"I'm also grateful that I have my Macky Agents on my group, on my Facebook page because they are the one to make someone friend. "

"I thanking them and I was grateful. The help, support and love they show me even though they don't know me at all. "

"Things that happened to me in the past when I was young. Things that I think no one should feel it. "

"Things happen in the past are worthy in the past."

"Though I look back to the past sometimes, it doesn't necessarily that it contributed to my depressive episode that I have. "

"Im recovering very well and thanks God everything is really really well."

"I'm just thanking God for me giving me a chance to go back to field because that's the only thing that will solve my problem. "

"I'm just thanking God for me giving me a chance to go back to field because that's the only thing that will solve my problem. "

"I'm able to balance my life a lot easier now. My time management go a lot better."

"One of the things that I love to myself is I dont believe to myself but some just one.

"I believe that there is always in this everything like motivational speaking, dancing, and singing. "

"Grew up as a Filipino having nothing at all, I've just wanted to try everything what I could. "

"I've been doing all the things that I love in the past few years."

"Thanks God for my work and thanks God for the blessings that I've been receiving from him. "

"I know that I don't deserved it all that's why I'm sharing."

Be grateful, count your blessings."
Delete, hide or report this

"Do what you love, sharing is happiness."

"Dancing is expression, express yourself."

"Happiness should be our priority."


"Happiness and recovery is still your main goal and priority."

"If I don't like things that I'm not comfortable with or I'm not happy with, I will make sure that I will not do it unless I will prioritize the things that will makes me happy."

"I will just follow what my guts are telling."

"Trust your instinct, science cannot explain it."

"I'm more rational in making decisions. I always counting it weighing things. "

"The process, and the consequences of the things that I will do."

"Making decisions is never gonna be easy. And I'm getting back on it."

"Im getting good on it again. I would say that those are the things I say. I am recovering well. "

"Trust but verify it."

"Trusting but verifying your clients especially when your client is overwhelmingly. Change a lot in just a short time. "

"Your will is stronger than any medications."


"I've change a lot in short time because my will to move on, my will to recover, and to fight are so strong. "

"I'm so strong that's the reason I recovered well."

"Great support system contributes to fast recovery."

The medications, and the prayers that I've got from my Macky Agents, from my friends and my family members, from everyone, and the support of God, and the love I felt from them. Those are the things that contributed me a lot to a fast recovery. "

Knowing and talking to people I don't know. And being able to interact with them and let them understand my situation, at the same time connecting to them, giving them pieces of advice. Knowing that there are people who reach out to me, who have problems not just financially but as well as depression, family problems, love problems, it makes me happy."

#LockDdownPhilippines #Covid19PhilippinesUpdate #Covid19Philippines #LockDownCebu #LockdownManila #Covid19UpadateManila #Covid19UpadateCebu