Search
#gary英語教室
In this video, I share the meaning of "what's shaking", when to use it and how to respond to this question. If you are interested, just feel free to check it out. You can click on the “cc” icon if you want to read the English c昂subtitle. Hopefully you will like it.
這則我自己製作的的 7分多鐘英語教學短片（#全英文），看完這則影片你將知道 what’s shaking 是什麼意思？在什麼場合使用？如何回覆這個問題？
要看「英文字幕」，也可以打看開「cc 字幕」喔！
看完影片別忘了「按讚」+「分享」+「訂閱」+「開啟小鈴鐺」哦! Thx.
【#影片連結】: https://youtu.be/kqujS-t-j04
今天還是聊 phonics。很多家長可能不太了解 phonics 是什麼，有的趕早送小孩去學，有的跟著公立小學慢慢學，但到後來發現，小考段考以為過關了，實際孩子學完就忘了，其實不會用，船過水無痕。最擔心的是過程中折損了孩子對英文的好感。
先說一句，我那年代學校是國中才教英文，我小學四年級（30 多年前！）在兒童美語班學英文，就是學 phonics，同時學 KK 音標。現在回想起來，當時課程的設計是用 KK 音標+模仿老師學發音、背鵝媽媽童謠學語調、phonics 學拼讀，加上每次下課前錄音回家聽，每次上課默寫、背書、考聽寫，高強度聽說讀寫齊頭並進。我到現在都還記得上課的時候老師邊唱 "Phonics, phonics, phonics~" 要我們拿課本出來，也記得回家作業第一條永遠是 "recite and memorize..." XD
以多年 phonics 使用者的經驗，參考國外母語孩子學 phonics 的歷程資料，試著說清楚 phonics 到底是什麼，怎麼學怎麼練，不足的地方在哪裡。希望對大家有幫助。
－－－－－－－
以 cat 這個字來舉例。為了說明方便，聲音我用 IPA / KK 音標表示，臺灣小學階段大部分不用音標。
一、
1.
cat 有「形」－「音」－「義」三個組成部分
形=拼字 spelling：C-A-T
音=發音 pronunciation：[kæt]
義=涵義 meaning (實物、圖片或中文翻譯)：🐈
上次貼文裡提到過了，phonics 處理的是「形」－「音」對應，在聽、說、讀、寫四項能力中：
看到 C-A-T，可以唸出 [kæt] ：讀的基礎技能
聽到 [kæt] ，可以拼出 C-A-T：寫的基礎技能
（讀和寫是閱讀理解和書面表達能力，需要與「義」結合，並且有上下文，才是有意義的讀寫）
＊Phonics 促進的是讀寫能力。（不要再被「自然發音」四個字誤導了！）
把學英文的年齡段提前，就是要按照更合理的「聽說讀寫」學習順序，聽說能力應該先於讀寫。
這樣一看就很清楚，不應該在沒有聽說能力前先學 phonics。
2.
外語孩子不太可能像母語人士一樣，上小學前已經有數千字的聽力詞彙，邊學 phonics 邊學新單字的情況很多。
如果是這樣的情況，就是聽說讀寫同時學習。
＊需要留意一個盲點：
小孩看著 🐈 圖卡，唸出 [kæt]，拼出 C-A-T，
這時小孩是正確運用了 phonics 規則，由讀音拼出 C-A-T，
還是走了捷徑，看著圖片直接拼出 C-A-T 的？－－如果直接由「義」連結到「形」，那就沒有練習到 phonics 技巧。
二、
要能看著 C-A-T 讀出 [kæt]，或是聽到 [kæt] 拼出 C-A-T ，孩子需要先具備哪些能力？
1. 認識字母並熟記相應字母音
現在流行的字母音 chants，常是 "A, A, A, /æ/, /æ/, /æ/, apple, apple, apple..." 這類型的。
英文有 26 個字母，但有 44 個音素，不是一一對應的，所以有 phonics 規則來輔助判斷單字如何發音。
2. 聽到 [kæt] ，可分解為 /k/ - /æ/ - /t/ 三個音素
－之前分享過資料，母語孩子大約 6 歲可以有這個能力
3. 聽到 /k/ - /æ/ - /t/ 可以連著讀出 [kæt]
－同上，母語孩子 6 歲的能力
4. 運用 phonics 規則解碼－讀：
(1) 看到 C-A-T，判斷為 CVC (子音-母音-子音) 結構
(2) CVC 結構，判斷 "A" 讀短音 /æ/
(3) "C" 在 "A" 前面，判斷 "C" 讀 /k/ （"C" 在 "E", "I" 前面讀 /s/，其他字母前讀 /k/）
(4) 三個字母分別對應字母音：/k/ - /æ/ - /t/
(5) 運用 3. 的 blending 能力，讀出 [kæt]
5. 運用 phonics 規則編碼－寫：
(1) 聽到 [kæt]，分解為 /k/ - /æ/ - /t/ (上述 2. 的能力)
(2) 辨認 /æ/ 為短母音 "A" (上述 1. 的能力)
(3) 判斷 /k/ 在 "A" 前面應為 "C"
(4) 寫出 C-A-T
三、彩蛋！（地雷？）
上面第 5. 項聽音拼字的過程，如果聽力不夠好：
(1) 把 /æ/ 聽成 /ɛ/，就會拼出 K-E-T
(2) 把 /æ/ 聽成 /eɪ/，就會拼出 C-A-T-E
聽力不夠好，原因通常是發音不標準、不穩固。自己說不出來的，耳朵就聽不到。
不穩固的意思是，可能要你特別把 cat, KET, Cate 三個字放在一起唸，還可以分得清楚
但是三個分開在不同句子裡面的時候，難保不會把 cat 唸成 Cate，把 Cate 唸成 KET。
現在看過 phonics 規則運用全過程，你就知道發音不標準，不是要聽的人「自己憑上下文判斷就好、不要吹毛求疵」那麼簡單的問題，
而是會連帶影響拼寫，考試會扣分喔！這樣發音是不是很重要 XD
－－－－－－
做個小結：
1. 發音準確是使用 phonics 規則的必要前提。在小孩能正確發出 44 個音素之前，都不需要心急先學 phonics 規則。
2. Phonics 規則對小小孩來說太抽象，如果你覺得你家三、四歲小孩都學會了，那他要不是天才，就是你看到假象。
3. 小孩 phonics 學很久都還不熟，請不要怪他，真的不是像廣告裡說的那麼輕鬆愉快。
4. 108 課綱之後不知道小學教材有沒有重編過，之前 phonics 分為一個單元一個單元，前面學過考過，後面不會再出現，可能小孩快畢業了你才發現之前幾年學的都船過水無痕．．．
5. Phonics 規則就算學會了，要大量反覆練習才能精熟，學校的教材練習量只夠應付段考，真正要運用自如，那絕對是不夠的。
6. Phonics 只能讓孩子看到單字唸出聲音，沒辦法讓孩子知道他發出的聲音是什麼意思，並沒有辦法讓孩子像學會注音之後享受自主閱讀，孩子覺得很煩、沒興趣是很正常的。
7. Phonics 只能讓孩子學會閱讀，沒辦法讓孩子愛上閱讀－這才是最重要的事，對吧？
＊「爸媽的英文繪本交流站」社團每天都有親子共讀打卡，快來參加！
－－－－－－
一不小心寫了好多，這還只是符合規則的最簡單單字～
不知道這樣寫大家看得清楚嗎？還是更模糊？
留言讓我知道一下吧！
下一篇要先插播講發音。
發音超級重要。Phonics 不能教你發音，但你如果發音不準，phonics 就跟著完蛋。
很多家長擔心自己發音不標準，不敢教小孩，直接送到外面給老師教。
嗯，我有一個壞消息，跟一個好消息．．．
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”
【最近のお気に入り】愛用スキンケア＋コスメ＋ネイル【current favs】
📝 紹介した商品 / products mentioned 📝
アイコンの意味 / icon meanings
🎁 提供 / gifted
💸 購入 / purchased
💰 アフィリエイト / affiliate
💸 エテュセ
ジェルムースN
¥1,650 (税込)
💰 Amazon - https://amzn.to/386H3Fu
💸 カントリー＆ストリーム
UVウォータリージェルN
¥990 (税込)
💸 ダイソー
メイクスポンジ
¥110 (税込)
💸 CipiCipi
グリッターイルミネーションライナー
ミッドナイトシュガー
¥1,540 (税込)
💸MERZY
Good Berry Lip & Eye Remover
¥900 (税込)
🎁 eLGON
GHリバースシリーズ
公式 - https://elgon.co.jp/c/select_category/select_series/gh-reverse
💸 ダッシングディバ
マジックプレス (コフィンタイプ)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
📝 割引コードなど / Discount codes etc. 📝
POPLENS - 💰 https://www.poplens.jp
紹介コード：P0368160
YES STYLE - 💰 https://ystyle.co/VkFy
Look fantastic - 💰 https://www.lookfantastic.jp/referrals.list?applyCode=XWDV-R1
※ 3,500円以上の購入で700円OFF
『VIVI20』で20%OFF ※ 一部対象外あり
Magiclinks - 💰 https://www.magiclinks.com/rewards/referral/vivimeg/
Tube Buddy - 💰 https://www.Tubebuddy.com/ViviMeg
MORNINGFA·ME - 💰 https://morningfa.me/invite/exmqmo3n
iHerb - 💰 https://www.iherb.com/?rcode=COE3037
Rebates - 💰 https://www.rebates.jp/referrer?refer...
☺️ Support ☺️
https://www.amazon.jp/hz/wishlist/ls/...
https://ko-fi.com/xxmegxx
📝 機材 / Equipment 📝
カメラ / Camera：iPhone 8 ＋ iPhone 11 Pro
マイク / Microphone：💰 https://amzn.to/3fpFO87
背景布 / Backdrop：💰 https://amzn.to/3s4GsLW
三脚(小) / Tripod(small)：💰 https://amzn.to/3taujqb
三脚(大) / Tripod(large)：💰 https://amzn.to/324qMOn
リングライト / Ringlight：https://bit.ly/2PYLqg6
編集 / Edit：VLLO Premium
📝 Connect 📝
Instagram ▶︎ http://instagram.com/megdoesreviews
📝 Contact 📝
Email ▶︎ megdoesreviews@gmail.com
📝 免責事項 / FTC Legal Disclaimer 📝
💰から始まるリンクはアフィリエイトになります。
リンクから購入や登録をすると私に報酬や特典が入りますのでご了承ください。
いつもありがとうございます！
Some links above may be affiliate links, meaning I will make a small commission on sales you make through my link.
They will be marked with a 💰 sign.
This is at no extra cost to you, just one more way to support me and my channel! Thank you in advance!
Love meg x
#最近のお気に入り #お気に入りコスメ #お気に入りアイテム
提供：株式会社エルゴン・ジャパン
エルゴン『GHリバース』：
https://elgon.co.jp/c/select_category/select_series/gh-reverse
※ GHリバースローションは頭皮につける商品なので、頭皮1～2センチまで近づけて塗布するのが1番効果的です！
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
最近 髪のハリ・コシ・ツヤがなくなった
白髪がちらほら出てくるようになった
抜け毛が増えた気がする
そんなお悩みはありませんか？
肌と同じように髪も老化します！
白髪なんてまだないという方でも
早めの対策を！
そして私みたいに
白髪がちらほら生えてきた方には
これ以上増やさないエイジングケアを
ご紹介したいと思います！
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
📝 割引コードなど / discount codes etc. 📝
POPLENS - 💰 https://www.poplens.jp
紹介コード：P0368160
YES STYLE - 💰 https://ystyle.co/VkFy
look fantastic - 💰 https://www.lookfantastic.jp/referrals.list?applyCode=XWDV-R1
※ 3,500円以上の購入で700円OFF
『VIVI20』で20%OFF ※ 一部対象外あり
Magiclinks - 💰 https://www.magiclinks.com/rewards/referral/vivimeg/
Tube Buddy - 💰 https://www.Tubebuddy.com/ViviMeg
MORNINGFA·ME - 💰 https://morningfa.me/invite/exmqmo3n
iHerb - 💰 https://www.iherb.com/?rcode=COE3037
Rebates - 💰 https://www.rebates.jp/referrer?refer...
☺️ サポートはこちらから ☺️
https://www.amazon.jp/hz/wishlist/ls/...
https://ko-fi.com/xxmegxx
📝 機材 📝
カメラ：iPhone 8 ＋ iPhone 11 Pro
背景：💰 https://amzn.to/3s4GsLW
三脚(少)：💰 https://amzn.to/3taujqb
三脚(大)：💰 https://amzn.to/324qMOn
リングライト ：https://bit.ly/2PYLqg6
編集：VLLOプレミアム
📝 SNS 📝
Instagram ▶︎ http://instagram.com/megdoesreviews
📝 contact 📝
email ▶︎ megdoesreviews@gmail.com
📝 FTC Legal Disclaimer 📝
💰から始まるリンクはアフィリエイトになります。リンクから購入や登録をすると、私に報酬や特典が入りますのでご了承ください。
some links above may be affiliate links, meaning i will make a small commission on sales you make through my link. they will be marked with a 💰 sign. this is at no extra cost to you, just one more way to support me and my channel! thank you in advance!
love meg x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
#エルゴン #GHリバース #エイジングケア #シャンプー #PR
更多有關蒙納米豎琴樂團 Monamis Harps 資訊
歡迎瀏覽官網 http://www.monamis.com.tw/
影片由蒙納米豎琴樂團發佈
「蒙納米」團名直譯自法語Mon Amis（我的好朋友），並刻意「誤讀」Mon Amis法語單複數，用意在期許「許多人」能在一場音樂會中達成「合一的共融」。如此親切、溫暖的意涵，拉近了和大家的距離，亦象徵著豎琴旋律溫暖每個人的心扉，可以成為大家的好朋友。
Monamis Harps was founded in the Summer of 2012.
The name of the ensemble is directly translated from French ‘ Mon Amis ’, meaning ‘ my buddies ’. Moreover, the name is intentionally misspelled in forming a complete unity.
Furthermore, the talents and characters of the members are varied ; graceful with precise while elegant softness versus heartfelt boldness with the harmonization attuned by the Director.
The sole purpose is to indulge in a fulfilled moment with the audience.
【樂曲資訊】
曲名：La Valse d'Amélie 艾蜜莉的華爾斯
作曲家：Yann Tiersen
取自：「艾蜜莉的異想世界」2001 法國電影
演奏：蒙納米豎琴樂團團長 Listen H.
攝影：Sheila L.
影片製作：Rita C.
拍攝日期：2021.07.03
拍攝地點：蒙納米豎琴樂團
【備註】
特別開窗錄影，除了豎琴聲，接收日常的聲音～
套一句法國人常說的一句話，C'est la vie ！（這就是生活！）
c meaning 在 C. Meaning - YouTube 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>