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

Cruising in style with Kamakura sky blue gingham check button-down shirt and the beloved double-breasted navy blazer with brass buttons.

A navy blazer is an essential piece of clothing to build one’s classic wardrobe, due to its history associate with the military and the versatility of the colour navy, it has become one of the classiest items in the world of menswear.

@kitblake_trousers Aleks in grey tropical wool, and court canvas trainers by @doekshoes.

Photo credit @milusphoto
.
.
.
#ivy #ivylook #ivyleaguestyle #ivyleaguelook #ivystyle #preppy #preppylook #preppystyle #tradstyle #takeivy #navyblazer #doublebreasted #tie #kamakurashirts #makersshirtkamakura #classicmenswear #menswear #mensfashion #mensstyle #menslook #mensweardaily #sartorial #tailoring #suit #suits #suiting #sprezzatura #dapper #styleforum #unclejudes

［ 全台灣最多的店家名單上線囉 ］

這段時間相信大家都很鬱卒，畢竟疫情還沒結束，為了所有人的安全著想，盡量避免不必要的外出活動以及群聚，所以胖編就順手編輯了全台的店家，讓粉絲們可以逛逛線上商店。

因為太多無法 tag 店家讓大家連結，但有興趣的店家就打上 Google 搜索，馬上就會看到相關的 FB、IG 或賣場，希望這段時間大家都可以平安的度過。

如果有沒打上的店家，歡迎大家在留言補充，胖編會在編輯進去的。
（老人家記性不好，多多包涵）

-

【台北、新北、基隆】
70s Vintage
Travis Vintage & Used Clothing
EWF Vintage
古漾
古著廢倉&vintage
FLEA MARKET 美國二手貨市場
Rock Vintage 搖滾古著
We are 1730
Head x Lover
Albino
Hime 古著
伴Ban 二手雜貨
JOJA 糾結創作
豬肉小姐
香蕉貓。Banana Cats
Rosie's Vintage 蘿西古著 - 二手衣
Pickers 古董設計
Back to Green
老又新OLD and NEW
A ROOM MODEL
A PRANK DOLLY
Famille Vintage
Fight against the world
時候古著 moment treasure
A.kon Stan Vintage 阿公‘s店
Base 1
0311vintage
BloodyJoke
Covent Garden Taiwan
Regether 關於女孩
The Frontier Club 邊境俱樂部
乒乓古著 Pingpong
兩光師の古著&玩具
Garage Vintage 車庫古著
烏龜 烏龜 古着商行
裊裊百貨公司
Mitty古著店
好的愛物Vintage
星期一古著Blue Monday Vintage
顛復古古著百貨行
渡鴉選物 古物 古着
REreburn:
嬉皮村 Hippie
龍德堂古著
Dmc12古著
FATTY BONE
DoolyDooly-杜莉古著·新品mix
獨角獸公園Unicorn Park
裘德叔叔的試衣間
聯誼古著。meetupvintage
野狐俱樂部
料質 Fabric. 古董婚紗・洋裝
鏽帶古著
福星 Flexing
對抗世界
三八計

【桃園、中壢、新竹】
Spirit
Smoka Vintage
大叔衣櫃古著老衣
嬉皮Hippie x Vintage古著
AFA Vintage
桂美衣櫥
拾 皝
TOM&MAO湯姆貓
TWO PIECE二手屋
戴走
ZEF
赤子 justkids
Curio_shop
蚵 蚵 k'e k'o /

【台中、嘉義】
Union mad
Aloha Time
花花古著
鹹魚Salted Fsh
Tsubasa.Y
極樂鳥
桑古古著 Somegood Vintage
東星商店
Tabi Vintage．旅著
感情用事古董婚紗店
莞洱
日日安好Goodday vintage
Twist Collection
Okashiki
[morning deer]
中途島古著&選物 Vintage Shop
擺地攤
AName_vintage
熊熊記得
老派滾石
Eagles老鷹商行
Pixelhelix
禾山部長
有関 about vintage
馬可有禮貌穿搭
艸青
初戀販賣所
星期一古著台中店Blue Monday Vintage Taichung (臺中市)
Moor Room 荒屋

【台南】
島．Shima
虫洞 - vintage and select shop
靑苔 moss archives
白木11 vintage
復。furugi
老爺夫人
Nature Vintage 自然選物買取店
純情百貨行
拾古 - vintage shop
星期一古着台南店
中意古著の商店 jongyih vintage
Acave Store 古窟商行 古著店 vintage shop
東 昌Dong Chang Vintage Shop
鳥樹 TORIKI
Hawk Vintage
新裝裏百貨行
喃寧 nan_ning_vintage
鳳梨罐頭 Vintage
一時古著 a while.vintage
Metal Mob
Acave Store 台南古著店
在古董 At Dantique
戀曲1980
麗麗部屋

【高雄】
怪獸古著
3he Club 銘仁棠 古著專賣店
Retroldy 老味生活
花麗露裊
公雞漢堡 RoosterBurger Shop
美利堅洋行
Paper Vintage_派駁買取店
古著倉庫
除了True Love
离憂古著商行
那舒比古著 NaSuBi Vintage
蛋植物古著Eggplant Vintage
南瓜百貨
服部古著
愛哩愛哩合作社
老耄
CatMeat 貓肉
瘋古著
TRIBUTO
DiscoBall｜梅魁商行
古古家二手古著 vintage
韃狗洋服/vintage古著 二手服飾
本物古著
麦子ムギコ古著舖
董女士古着商店
古貨仔 guyswithvintage
老屋.老物.老石頭
古厝二手 老物GU CHU
超級鳥註冊商標
舊派
yesterday sandwich
前鎮二手貨
橫濱倉庫
Mystery神秘古董百貨行
ZackHouse 柴房
歷史生存者''歐美古董店History Survivors Antique Shop
CITYDUMP 都市廃棄所
異端 x 惜昔
Endof20th

【屏東、台東、宜蘭】
疫年
舊是寶
小龜葛葛 x 古著衣庫 = Faun's Vintage
古着屋 OREO Shake

【未知地區】
Wander
Albino
職人衣工場 We care about the future
Bonita Studio
Dirty Pretty古着屋 選物
衣生Dr.vintage Used &select Shop
小鬍子古著選物 Moustache Vintage
公主毛病｜vintage select
繭居 ケンキヨ 古物市
壹肆壹古著

-

#喜歡就不要吝嗇分享
#點讚後追蹤設為搶先看
#vintage #古著 #古着
Instagram：https://goo.gl/wui6Dz

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”

Sweatshirt的命名我也一直充滿疑問所以才做這集，
如果去台灣champion網站裡看會發現他是寫「大學T」！
畢竟champion是Sweatshirt知名品牌感覺應該是有可信度，
所以雖然我影片中認為不太適合被稱做大學T，
但我想在台灣也可以說算是積非成是，通俗用語了吧！XD

有個很有趣的狀況是，
ZARA、H&M是真的寫「運動衫」喔！
不過真的跟店員講運動衫可能他還不知道吧XD

看完之後想嘗試一下Sweatshirt不知道去哪買的話，
趕快去看一下唯庭這部吧！
「台灣就有門市的8件日系品牌秋冬上衣推薦！」
https://youtu.be/LeggROlG6p0

如果影片內容有錯誤的話，非常歡迎各位跟我講，我會把正確資訊補充在敘述的！




喜歡這部影片記得幫我訂閱點讚分享喔喔！


以上感謝大家收看!!



_____________________________
Facebook ► https://www.fb.com/wwwfamilybroscom
Instagram ►https://www.instagram.com/fmbs.wear
Website ►http://www.familybros.com/
Instagram家►https://www.instagram.com/onuswc
Instagram庭►https://www.instagram.com/yeahkwt/
Wear家 ►https://wear.jp/onus/
Wear庭 ►https://wear.jp/waitingk/


Email ►Familybros@hotmail.com


資料來源：
https://www.russellathletic.com/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/435582595203249036/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/9922061649555846/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/770397079988503727/
https://oxfordclothbuttondown.com/2020/02/vintage-champion-style/
https://www.aliexpress.com/i/32955602689.html
http://www.clutchmagjapan.com/en/journal/1482320670
https://www.thread.com/gb/item/levis-vintage-levis-vintage-clothing-bay-meadows-crew-sweat-blue-note/1705292
https://jointcustodydc.com/products/vintage-1940s-single-v-sweatshirt
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/24/31/51/243151bd3553ba66b54ac67d35f6692a.jpg
https://www.etsy.com/listing/877614178/vintage-russell-sweatshirt-vintage?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=1950s+sweatshirt&ref=sr_gallery-1-16&cns=1
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/204139795580885195/
https://www.sweater2020.xyz/ProductDetail.aspx?iid=157245342&pr=57.99
https://vintagesweatshirt.com/pages/history-of-sweatshirt
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/24/31/51/243151bd3553ba66b54ac67d35f6692a.jpg
https://walterwarrenwalters.com/filter/Stencil/Oohlala-30-s-Spalding-Tigers-Sweat
https://www.trimstore.co.uk/product/1940-s-vintage-double-v-flocked-indian-print-sweatshirt
https://www.grailed.com/listings/13929481-military-x-vintage-rare-original-wwii-1940s-military-camp-sweatshirt
https://www.uniqlo.com/us/en/men-long-sleeve-sweatshirt-408984.html
http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Articles/History.htm


#大學T穿搭 #衛衣穿搭 #男生穿搭

♥Let's be friends
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/makaylacorner/
Instagram:https://instagram.com/makaylang/

▻My plus size clothing
Instagram:https://instagram.com/fashioncornerplus
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/fashioncorne...
Website: https://www.fashioncornerplus.com

♫Music
Groove Armada - history(feat will young)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
✩FAQ✩
What size you are wearing? UK18
How tall are you? 160cm

If you like this video, please like and subscribe to my channel.
See you guys in the next video!

This is NOT a sponsored video.
#穿搭技巧 #大碼穿搭 #衣櫃必備

正式場合怎麼穿？正式服裝有哪些要點？
為什麼日本的西裝文化特別盛行？

現代服裝源於歐洲，今天 #艾薩克Isaac 介紹男裝搭配架構中「服裝正式休閒比重」的「正式」，簡單藉由現代服裝源由，輕鬆掌握基本 #正裝服裝原則！

訂閱頻道 ▶ https://pse.is/isaacslifestyle

What to wear to a formal event? Why Japanese have a rich culture of modern wear?

Following our first video: The Menswear Framework, today we'd share with you " Formal " of "Proportions of Formal to Casual". Today you will learn how to dress formal wear right!

Subscribe me ▶ https://pse.is/isaacslifestyle

-

本集重點Points of the Video：
00:17 正式服裝是怎麼來的呢？History of Formal Wear
01:35 正式服裝 Formal Wear


推薦連結Related Videos：
【男生穿搭#1】男裝搭配架構：「場合」決定「正式休閒」，再以「四原則」輕鬆搞定穿搭！【Men's Fashion #1】The Menswear Framework (https://youtu.be/A_qdg8JreLA)
【男生穿搭#2】二大配色原則，穿搭好簡單！|【Men's Fashion #1】2 Easy Color Matching Rules（https://youtu.be/E4o-7wuPvdg）
【男生穿搭#3】腿太短？不！只是你褲子穿太低了！|【Men's Fashion #3】Tips to Lengthen Your Legs and Look Taller (https://youtu.be/EVczxCFHWXk)
【男生穿搭#4】衣服怎麼穿才帥？合身是最大關鍵！|【Men's Fashion #4】How Your Suit & Shirt Should Fit（https://youtu.be/SKIAelqTYwk）
【男生穿搭#5】怕熱？其實是你穿錯材質！|【Men's Fashion #5】Men's Clothing Fabric Guide（https://youtu.be/I9D7IIA2SSE）
【男生穿搭#6】週五上班日怎麼穿？Business Casual好簡單！|【Men's Fashion#6】Business Casual Outfit Ideas for Men 2019（https://youtu.be/H4J1QKxaWw8）
【男生穿搭#7】想穿得帥一點？就從Smart Casual開始！|【Men's Fashion#7】Smart Casual Outfit Ideas for Men 2019 (https://youtu.be/IFUdE3wEwCw)

-

看完影片還是覺得穿搭很難？
沒關係，你可以 #預約艾薩克Isaac免費諮詢！

預約Booking : http://legere.simplybook.asia/v2/#book
官網Website : https://www.legere.com.tw (#LEGERE里格)

-

追蹤 Follow me
Instagram http://www.instagram.com/isaacslifestyle/
Facebook http://facebook.com/isaacslifestyle

商業合作邀約 For Business Inquiries
Email: [email protected]

-

#穿搭 #男生穿搭 #正式休閒比重 #正式 #Formall #正裝 #正式服裝 #正式場合 #DressCode #帥 #變帥