關於 the wanted 2022 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

✨GIVEAWAY✨
Aaron and Jamie will join Jiejie Arielle at Little Skool-House in January 2022! School may only start officially then but we wanted to keep them active and learning; after-all, 80% of our baby’s brain is developed before they turn 2.

We enrolled them for The Golden Window of Learning (GWL) by @TheLittleSkoolHouseSG, a curriculum curated by educators, to develop, support and accelerate the foundational learning of toddlers aged 12 months - 2 years old. GWL, conducted at the comfort of home, is a 12 week programme available in bilingual option (English and Mandarin) or either language only.

The GWL programme consists of 2 parts - Engage at Home and Liveclass online. Engage at Home gives us access to tutorials and storytelling videos, giving us activity ideas while Liveclass online are zoom classes with a teacher and fellow programme mates.

We’ve had the opportunity to experience both Engage at Home and Liveclass online and I felt that it was engaging and fun, providing us with ideas for our child to learn! If you would like to explore GWL Programme for your tods too, quote ZOE10 for 10% off!

Giving away 1 month of GWL Programme subscription in your choice of language worth $120! Be a follower of @littleskoolhousesg, comment why you would like to win this programme and the age of your child. Winner will be picked in a week’s time! (New subscribers only for new term starting Dec, programme not refundable / exchangeable and transferrable)

🌻Docusign(DOCU), Crowdstrike(CRWD)財報結果
上週這兩家公司發表財報了.

這兩天看了一下他們的財報結果. Again, 兩家的表現都很好, 但發現分析師給DOCU的調價(往上)幅度比較多, 就好奇研究了一下SaaS公司是怎麼被估值的. 有興趣的話可以看看(從中學習到很多. 非常推薦一讀):
https://makingsenseofusastocks.blogspot.com/2021/09/blog-post.html

(By the way, 分析師對CRWD的價格調幅沒那麼大, 主因是成長趨緩了. 而DOCU的free cash flow佔營收比, 以及顧客黏著力在這季創了新高, 是讓分析師按讚的幾個原因).

關於CRWD: "The Street is already modeling revenue growth deceleration in 2022 to 36%, down from 60% expected in 2021, which on its own might prove a hurdle for a stock already trading at a high multiple," said Bank of America analyst Tal Liani in a report.

分析師對於DOCU的評價:
• 11位buy; 給的價格分別是: $310, $320 (x2), $330 (x2), $340 (x2), $345, $350, $350, $389
• 給Buy的分析師的評語:
o Baird: The analyst continues to view them as a best in class way to play digital transformation trends with strong growth, cash flow and profitability, and a strong competitive position. Power said DocuSign remains one of his top long-term compounding growth ideas.
o Citi: While slightly shy of the double-digit billings beat in recent quarters, DocuSign still delivered a solid 8% beat to Q2 billings, which grew 47% year-over-year, Radke tells investors in a research note.
o Evercore ISI: he calls "another strong quarter." While some may have wanted to see more aggressive Q3 billings guidance, he believes estimates "continue to leave room for upside," Materne said.
o JMP Securities: While revenue growth decelerated to 50% from 58% in Q1, the company is the clear leader in electronic signature and the broader system of agreement having crossed over 1M customers with a $2B run rate this quarter, the analyst tells investors in a research note, adding that he sees lots of room for growth as DocuSign targets a $50B total addressable market.
o Needham: The analyst commented, "Docusign reported another strong quarter in 2QF22 with typical DOCU upside to revenue and profitability. Sales metrics and growth decelerated Q/Q, as we expected against a massive pandemic quarter, but at a much slower rate than we believe much of the Street was anticipating. 65k net new customers was lower than the 70k - 90 range of CY20 but was still more than 2x greater than any pre-pandemic quarter, highlighting a strong end-market driving 47% billings growth against a strong comp. Commentary on incremental Agreement Cloud demand was positive, suggesting an additional growth tailwind combined with solid international can further aid 2HF22. Although DOCU shares could be lower near-term due to weak 2H OpMg guidance, we think this guidance is conservative, as the recent OM was greater than the pre-pandemic level even with tough comps."
o RBC Capital: The quarter highlighted the sustainability of the company's tailwinds post-pandemic as most of its underlying metrics such as billings and net revenue retention were solid, the analyst tells investors in a research note, adding that the traction with CLM and Notary was also "impressive".

分析師對於CRWD的評價:
• 12位buy; 給的價格分別是: $300, $310 (x2), $313, $315 (x2) , $305, $320, $325, $330 (x2), $340
• 1位給hold: $280 (from $220 by J.P. Morgan(same))
• 給Buy的分析師的評語:
o Baird: The analyst believes the company has significant room for growth with core modules, opportunities with Humio and in cloud workload security, among others, should help drive a continuation of strong growth over a long time horizon.
o BTIG: The company's "strong" Q2 results "cleared every hurdle", even though the buy-side benchmarks may have been slightly higher, the analyst tells investors in a research note. Powell adds that Crowdstrike is clearly gaining share in its core endpoint security target market at a rapid pace and gaining traction with new products across multiple categories.
o Canaccord: The analyst said the stock is down from its recent highs, and he thinks the re-rating creates a more favorable entry point for longer-oriented investors for a foundational security name. He views Crowdstrike as a long-term secular winner in security due to its native cloud platform advantage versus closely held peers in endpoint security combined with platform expansion into tangential segments to capture greater share of security budgets.
o Goldman Sachs: CrowdStrike last night delivered "another beat and raise quarter as the company benefited from another quarter of elevated demand," Essex said. But it traded lower following net new annual recurring revenue growth guidance that was slightly less than investors had hoped for. Essex, nonetheless, said the quarter demonstrated CrowdStrike's "ability to continue to go down market efficiently."
o JMP Securities: The analyst notes the company's Q2 annualized recurring revenue of $1.34B topping his estimate of $1.30B, with "sustained" 70% ARR and revenue growth along with margin upside seen as key highlights for the quarter. Suppiger adds that the metrics reflect Crowdstrike's "strong execution and robust demand environment".
o Mizuho: "very good" fiscal Q2 results. The annual recurring revenue growth of 70% year-over-year "was strong and still nicely surpassed" the Street's 65%-66% estimate, Moskowitz tells investors in a research note. He believes "strong execution can propel" Crowdstrike's stock higher.
o Piper Sandler: The company's metrics "outperformed across the board" in Q2 with 70% annual recurring revenue and revenue growth and record net new customer adds in the quarter, Owens tells investors in a research note.
o RBC Capital: Hedberg adds that CrowdStrike's record pipeline entering Q3 should continue to fuel the company's "land-and-expand" momentum.
o Stifel: Q2 results that he said "exceeded consensus estimates across all major financial metrics." He continues to believe that Crowdstrike's growth opportunity "remains in the early days" despite the company's scale given continued share capture within its core endpoint security market and incremental module adoption on the Falcon Platform, Reback tells investors.
o UBS: the company reported "pretty good" Q2 results against high expectations.

🌻趨勢: 跨境電商 Cross-border commerce
Morgan Stanley:
From our perspective, we think many are underestimating what the cross-border eCommerce demand could ultimately be, once key friction points like FX rates, tax and duties, shipping, language, etc are smoothed—all issues that Global-E directly addresses.

Cross-border ecommerce brings new, high-yield volume: We think elevated levels of cross-border ecommerce (ex-travel) is a structural shift thathas yet to be fully contemplated in MA (and V)'s long-term forecasts. MA's cross-border CNP ex-travel volume was 69% above 2019's level in 2Q and 63% higher in 1Q. Strength reflects both broader ecommerce adoption plus globalization of commerce, as marketplaces and services that reduce cross-border friction (such as those from GLBE) make international online ordering more readily adopted. Early data at V suggests greater cross-border ecommerce spend is persisting even in areas with pre-pandemic levels of international travel. Cross-border transactions also come at a higher yield, making us more optimistic that the trend can bring incremental long-term growth to the networks.

產業的潮流是有連貫性的. 疫情讓電商更發達後, 接下來應該就是加速電商跨境了. 跨境的話, 有很多問題需要解決(稅率, 語言, etc.) 這就需要有公司來做整合的動作. 這種跨境, 也可以想像是omnichannel的一種呈現.

Harley Finkelstein (President of Shopify): "I mean I think commerce in 2021 is cross-border."

🌻SPAC熱潮退卻，初創市值蒸發750億美元
"SPAC熱潮已經退卻。分析顯示，在2月中旬以前完成合併的137家SPAC的總市值已經蒸發25%，市值回落幅度上個月一度超過1,000億美元。"

"像貝萊德(BlackRock Inc., BLK)和富達投資(Fidelity Investments Inc.)這類企業管理的基金，以及許多對沖基金、養老金管理公司和其他一些投資者，都在SPAC的回落中遭受了衝擊，他們在去年年底開始的熱潮中競相投資SPAC。其中許多基金由於在價格還很低的時候就早早入場，所以現在仍坐擁可觀收益。事實上，SPAC市值仍有約2,500億美元，高於一年前的約1,000億美元，反映出這期間股價上漲和新公司上市的影響。

但即便如此，今年年初令人炫目的回報還是讓許多後來者做了接盤俠，扎堆投資所謂穩賺不賠的領域，其永恆的風險可見一斑。在過去的幾個月裡，一些投資者眼睜睜看著帳面財富縮水。"

"股價下跌會在SPAC領域形成惡性循環，因為投資者有權在併購交易前從空白支票公司撤資。一旦SPAC跌破發行價，投資者就更有可能這樣做，而許多SPAC的股價現在正處於這樣的水平。目前，在尚未宣布併購交易的空白支票公司中，超過95%的公司股價低於發行價。

投資者的大規模撤資會讓已經上市的空白支票公司手上的現金大幅減少，讓其更難實現業務目標，並可能加劇股價跌勢。"

https://on.wsj.com/3n6JznC

🌻BNPL (buy now pay later)
But most BNPL providers including Affirm, Klarna and Afterpay have been losing money despite breakneck revenue growth as they invest heavily in marketing to win share. Sweden-based Klarna’s credit losses more than doubled in the second quarter. Affirm has projected adjusted operating losses of $50m-$55m for the fiscal year that ended June 30.

The path to profitability for many of these companies was to achieve massive scale, analysts said.

https://www.ft.com/content/ca201a37-a16d-4223-b123-04d38350a972

Pictures: 一葉知秋; from EarningsWhispers

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”

土管を解体する前にもうちょっと有効活用したい！　と思ったら土管に詰まって出られなくなったまる。今までの穴よりは大きいので、たぶん土管の高さによって中でつま先立ちになっているためと思われる。
I wanted to make more effective use of the pipe before dismantling it! Although the hole was larger than usual, Maru could not get out of the pipe.
Because of the height of the pipe, he is probably standing on tiptoe in it.
-----------------------------------------
カレンダー2022発売中！
壁掛け： https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B094J76SZG
卓上： https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B094J6Z2TT
----------------------------------------
Blog: https://sisinmaru.com/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/maruhanamogu/

Just wanted to know which Jurassic Park Games do you like the most
out of the series.

Discover the greatest Jurassic Park Games of all time in this video
Jurassic Park All Games
Jurassic Park 1993
(NES)
Jurassic Park 1993
(SNES
Jurassic Park 1993
(SEGA GENESIS
Jurassic Park 1993
(GAME GEAR
Jurassic Park 1993
(SEGA CD
Jurassic Park 1993
(AMIGA
Jurassic Park 1993
(Arcade)
Jurassic Park 2: The Chaos Continues 1994
(SNES)
Jurassic Park 2: The Chaos Continues 1994
(GB)
Jurassic Park Interactive 1994
(3DO)
Jurassic Park: Rampage Edition 1994
(SEGA GENESS)
The Lost World: Jurassic Park 1997
(PS1, Sega Saturn)
The Lost World: Jurassic Park 1997
(SEGA GENESIS)
Chaos Island: The Lost World 1997
(PC)
The Lost World Jurassic Park 1997
(Arcade)
Jurassic Park: Trespasser 1998
(PC)
Warpath: Jurassic Park 1999
(PS1
Jurassic Park III: Dino Defender 2001
(PC, MAC)
Jurassic Park III Danger Zone! 2001
(PC)
Jurassic Park III 2001
(Arcade)
Jurassic Park III: Island Attack 2001
(GBA)
Jurassic Park III: The DNA Factor 2001
(GBA)
Jurassic Park III: Park Builder 2001
(GBA)
Universal Studios Theme Parks Adventure: Jurassic Park 2001
(GCUBE)
Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis 2003
(PS2, XBOX, PC)
Jurassic Park: The Game 2011
(PS3, XBOX360, PC, MAC, iOS)
Jurassic Park Builder 2012
(PC, iOS, ANDROID)
Jurassic World: The Game 2015
(ANDROID, iOS)
Lego Jurassic World 2015
(XBOX360, XBOXONE, WiiU, PS3, PS4, PSVITA, 3DS, OSX, iOS, ANDROID, PC)
Jurassic World Evolution 2018
(XBOXONE, PS4, PC, Switch)
Jurassic World Evolution 2 2021
(XBOXONE, XSX/S,PS4, PS5, PC)

Did you know that Kitadake (3193m above sea level) is the second highest mountain in Japan ? Since we have climbed mt. Fuji (no. 1), mt. Okuhodakadake (no. 3), we decided we wanted to complete our ‘top 3’ and climbed mt. Kitadake.
北岳は標高3193メートルで日本の中で第2番目に高い山です！富士山（１番目）、奥穂高岳（３番目）を登ったことがあるので、今回は2番目に高い山に挑戦！

---------------------------------------------------  

こちらも忘れずに！Come say Hi !

Instagram Maaike → https://www.instagram.com/maaikedayo/
Instagram Takeru → https://www.instagram.com/t4kerudayo/
Twitter → https://twitter.com/maaikeandtakeru

---------------------------------------------------  

海外での宿泊先：Airbnb で予約！

以下URLからAirbnbに登録すると、宿泊料金は¥ 3,700オフになります。 さらに、¥ 5,280以上の体験が¥ 1,388オフになります！  
Get 40 dollars off your first booking on airbnb by using the link below !  

https://www.airbnb.jp/c/maaikev48?currency=JPY  

---------------------------------------------------  

私たちのカメラアイテム・Our camera gear  

Sony α7III： https://amzn.to/2Xz90yy
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 di iii rxd： https://amzn.to/2K2Lhnr
Samyang 14mm AF : https://amzn.to/2WReyHP
Zhiyun Crane Plus ： https://amzn.to/2I37D5Z
Gopro Hero 5： https://amzn.to/2XAhbL9
DJI Mavic Pro ： https://amzn.to/2I1pjPr
Atlas camera bag: https://amzn.to/2K0MNq4

---------------------------------------------------  

音楽・Music  

この動画で使われた音楽は全てEpidemicSoundからダウンロードした曲です。  
All the music we use is from EpidemicSound.  

https://www.epidemicsound.com/  

---------------------------------------------------  

ビジネスメールアドレス・Business email  

maaikeandtakeru@gmail.com  

---------------------------------------------------  

以下ビデオもぜひご覧ください！More videos like this:

→ 5 days in Japan//日本で5日間過ごすなら  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl-PbYuSXXQ  
→ How and when to enjoy the mountains in Japan//季節毎の山の楽しみ方  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQqMCVVHnLM&t=22s  
→ Go Indonesia ! 4 days in Bali // バリ島で４日間を過ごした  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Y-Bex-HXQ  

---------------------------------------------------  

自己紹介・Introduction

こんにちは、ベルギー生まれのマーイケと日本生まれのタケルです。日本に住んでいます。旅が大好きなので2022年までに50カ国を旅することを計画しています！私達をフォローして、新しい旅の一緒に体験しましょう！

Hi ! We are Maaike & Takeru, a Belgian + Japanese couple living in Japan. We take every chance we get to go on an adventure and we set a goal to travel to 50 countries by the end of 2022 ! Follow us along to discover the places we visit during our travel adventures.  

---------------------------------------------------  

このビデオはスポンサー付いていません。アフィリエイトプログラムを利用しています。
This video is not sponsored. Some of the links above may be affiliates. 

#北岳 #kitadake #mountain #climbing #登山 #南アルプス #southernalps #Japan #japantravel