關於 nine room ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Hotel California　◎Eagles
　
On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair
奔馳於黑暗的沙漠路途，冷風穿過我一頭亂髮
Warm smell of colitas, rising up through the air
菸草的溫暖氣味瀰漫
Up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light
就在前方，我看見遠處閃動的光
My head grew heavy and my sight grew dim
頭愈加沉重，視線陷入昏暗
I had to stop for the night
我得找個地方過夜
There she stood in the doorway; I heard the mission bell
她出現在門口，天命般的鐘聲響起
And I was thinking to myself,
我忖度，
"This could be Heaven or this could be Hell"
這裡究竟是天堂，抑或是地獄
Then she lit up a candle and she showed me the way
她燃起蠟燭指引我前方的路
There were voices down the corridor,
迴廊底部傳來絮語
I thought I heard them say...
我聽見他們說……
　
Welcome to the Hotel California
歡迎來到加州旅館
Such a lovely place (Such a lovely place)
這誘人之地（這誘人之地）
Such a lovely face
多麼美妙的臉龐
Plenty of room at the Hotel California
這裡空餘的房間
Any time of year (Any time of year)
不論何時
You can find it here
歡迎你的到來
Her mind is Tiffany-twisted, she got the Mercedes bends
她沉溺於珠寶和名車造成的精神恍惚
　
She got a lot of pretty, pretty boys she calls friends
她結識許多漂亮的男孩，並稱之為朋友
How they dance in the courtyard, sweet summer sweat.
在庭院起舞，甜美的夏日汗水
Some dance to remember, some dance to forget
藉舞蹈以記憶，有些則藉以遺忘
So I called up the Captain,
所以我呼叫侍者
"Please bring me my wine"
給我倒些酒
He said, "We haven't had that spirit here since nineteen sixty nine"
他說：「自從一九六九年，我們再沒有那樣的烈酒。」
And still those voices are calling from far away,
那些聲響不斷地從遠方傳來，
Wake you up in the middle of the night
在深夜喚我醒來
Just to hear them say...
只聽見他們說……
　
Welcome to the Hotel California
歡迎來到加州旅館
Such a lovely place (Such a lovely place)
奇妙的所在（奇妙的所在）
Such a lovely face
那惹人憐愛的臉龐
They livin' it up at the Hotel California
在加州旅館享受人生
What a nice surprise (what a nice surprise)
好得令人吃驚
Bring your alibis
帶著你逃逸的理由
　
Mirrors on the ceiling,
天花板的懸鏡
The pink champagne on ice
浮冰上的紅粉香檳
And she said "We are all just prisoners here, of our own device"
而她說：「我們在自己的監牢，做自己的囚犯。」
And in the master's chambers,
在主人的房間，
They gathered for the feast
他們聚集赴宴
They stab it with their steely knives,
他們以銳利的刀戳刺
But they just can't kill the beast
卻無法殺了那頭野獸
Last thing I remember, I was
我記得的最後一件事，是我
Running for the door
正逃向那門
I had to find the passage back
我必須找到逃出的道路
To the place I was before
回到我原先的道路
"Relax, " said the night man,
「放輕鬆，」守夜人對我說，
"We are programmed to receive.
我們照常接待旅客。
You can check-out any time you like,
你可以隨時退房，
But you can never leave! "
但你永遠不能離開！
　
-
⠀
◎小編有庠賞析
⠀　
此首Hotel California發表於1960年代，同名專輯可說是老鷹樂團最音樂事業最成功，商業銷量也最好的一張專輯。回顧歷經鄉村、西部、搖滾等風格的老鷹樂團，成員上也有所變動，連帶雜揉出獨特面貌。在第五張專輯收錄了這首歌，其吉他演奏多為人所稱頌，成為各地樂迷學習、模仿的經典。淒涼的吉他聲拉出荒涼的公路軸線，隨著樂音向黑暗延伸，鏡頭拉至敘述者面前，加入鼓聲。吉他聲賦予追索回憶的進程，鼓聲則穩定敘述語調，漸次堆展至副歌精準的和聲。
　
評論者對於詞中的情節有多重解釋，內容主要描寫敘述者在公路上奔馳，雜以描述當時美國洛杉磯的生活切面：狂歡、毒品、舞蹈、酒精等等意象，無法退房的加州旅館象徵難以脫逃的沉溺感。第一段敘述者動用多重感官，閃動的光、陰冷的風，以及鼻腔充滿的菸草味共同建構出荒涼景象。以上種種襯托加州旅館的誘人，為了未知可能隱含的傷害性製造更大的張力。主歌以主唱一人獨唱為主，進入副歌則加上合聲，除了呼應「我聽見他們說……」的承接句，開啟旅館內紛呈的景象。第一層張力由此產生，荒涼的環境中佇立炫目奢華的旅館，本質上的衝突除了是敘述者沉溺的理由，同時是後段敘述者發覺事態詭異的理由。
　
畫面中不斷提及的敘事對象「她」，彷彿具象化這座加州旅館，一步步引人進入，如「她燃起蠟燭指引我前方的路」。敘述者層層陷入「她」的舞蹈與夏日汗水，也順理成章地要了酒精，得到的回應卻是：「自從一九九六年，我們再沒有那樣的烈酒。」
　
類似形式的副歌，自此再次出現，產生不同意義：先前感到新奇而步入，如今熱情過度的人們顯得格格不入。中後段的吉他獨奏則給予聽者空間，如同換幕的效果，詩中的空行。進一步加深情緒之外，也做為後段啟示的鋪墊：「我們在自己的監牢，做自己的囚犯。」最後一節，一句歌詞令人不安，同樣以過去式寫成：「我記得的最後一件事，是我逃向那門」，除了描寫敘述者慌亂的行為，他記得的最後一件事是自己逃向門，那令人猜想那他現今身在何處？
　
整體情節製造懸疑，環境景色雖已大不相同，放置到當代仍可成立。在當時，奢糜作為生命逃逸方法的年代，內部的焦慮卻未曾消失。歌詞也許僅是描寫時代切面，但的確觸及了人類思考生命的終極問題。生命如同歌曲：器樂與人聲合唱中，澎拜的聲響反而加深神秘感與不確定感。轉述旅館景象的語調如沉重的叩問，一波波的器樂經歷高潮，而逐漸散退。歌中的人聲轉印至人群心中，揭露各有自己無法逃脫的加州旅館。
　
⠀　
　
-
▨ 美術設計 _ 浩瑋
　
https://cendalirit.blogspot.com/2021/09/20210919.html
#每天為你讀一首詩 #當代詞選 #西洋詞選 #加州旅館 #老鷹樂隊

《LIFE》居家DIY
-
其實很久之前我就在頭腦裡畫了一張圖，我一定要打造出一個專屬我這個大男孩的夢想房間。
-
礙於以前我都是跟家人一起住所以我其實沒有太多專屬我自己的空間，但其實我個人一直對於設計以及規劃很有想法。自從我的爸媽搬去新家之後我就開始著手，從桌子的購買拼裝，到房間的裝飾，再到房間氛圍的燈光調整，都是我一個人親手包辦的 🙈
-
整個工程大約花了我半天左右的時間，很多的小細節，不管是燈光的顏色選擇，還是桌子的長寬高度，亦或是牆上的掛畫選擇，我都在我的腦海裡描畫了那個藍圖，而當我終於完工的時候那種成就感真的是無法言喻啦 ❤️ (而且全部的東西我都是在蝦皮上面買的，沒錯連桌子都是，真的超級方便🤙🏿🤙🏿）
-
現在疫情嚴峻，大家可以在家裡待著就不要出門，注意安全以及防疫。而生活就是不斷需要一些新鮮感以及目標，趁著這個機會沉澱，也改善你們的生活周遭環境吧！
-
一起來打造你所夢想的房間，居家也可以很有意義哦❤️！
-
-
#蝦皮購物 #蝦皮特派員 #安心在家上蝦皮 #收納改造 #dream #room #exclusive #防疫人人有責 #nINe #taiwan

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”

久しぶりのGRWM+プチVlog🐰☕️✨
カフェラテ買いに行くよシリーズ💕💕
ヘアメンテもしたし、秋ファッションもやりたかったので、盛りだくさんな動画にしちゃいました☺️💗💜そして、頑張って外で撮ってみた笑 誰もいないとこでひっそり撮ったよ🤫🤫🤫笑


Hey,guys!It's get ready with me & vlog!~2021.09~.Did you guys enjoy that?👻💕
So if you like it,please give me a thumbs up and subscribe my channel.Bye💋


#GRWM #準備動画 #大人カジュアル #ゆるウェーブヘア #秋メイク #秋服 #秋ファッション


楽天ROOMはこちら🧡コスメや日用品、ファッションなどなど載せています✨
　　↓↓↓
https://room.rakuten.co.jp/yurika_room/items



※住所が変わりましたので
もしお手紙など送ってくださる方がいらっしゃいましたら、ご確認お願い致します🙇‍♀️💕
💌お手紙の送り先💌
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
〒107-6228
東京都港区赤坂9-7-1
ミッドタウン・タワー 28階
UUUM株式会社
yurika mul宛


instagram⇨https://www.instagram.com/yuri0813ka/
Twitter⇨https://twitter.com/yurika__0813


楽曲提供：Production Music by http://www.epidemicsound.com


💄とある1日のGet Ready With Me🚙
https://youtu.be/KXQ4rSevmvs
🧡最小限メイク💓ナチュラルメイクの極み🧡
https://youtu.be/f8M1u3PHezI
✨スキンケアroutine〜summer2018〜✨
https://youtu.be/Gp5OJPJsQ9c
🌞モーニングルーティーン🌞
https://youtu.be/6Qnt97zmkzo
🏝Get Ready With Me in Okinawa🌞
https://youtu.be/0CZDMm5pYAU


💋自己紹介💋
https://youtu.be/gDzsO8OIYIc


Thank you💋

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
💗MAKEUP💗
Primer
CEZANNE(セザンヌ)…UVウルトラフィットベースEX 00 オレンジベージュ　￥７４８

Foundation
revlon(レブロン)…カラーステイ クッションロングウェア ファンデーション　002 バニラ　￥２５３０

Concealer
vinotrte(ヴァントルテ)…ミネラルシルクコンシーラー ￥２５３０

Powder
CEZANNE(セザンヌ)…うるふわ仕上げパウダー　03 ルーセントクリア　￥８５８

Eyebrows
ちふれ…アイブローパウダー　PK10 ピンク系ブラウン　￥７７０
インテグレート…ニュアンスアイブローマスカラ　BR672 ナチュラルブラウン　￥８８０

Eyeshadow
revlon(レブロン)…ソーフィアス！プリズマティックパレット　ザ ビッグ バン　￥１７６０
アディクション…ザ アイシャドウ スパークル　007SP Gold Rush　￥２２００

Eyeliner
ラブライナー…クリームフィットペンシル　ロージィブラウン、ミディアムブラウン 各￥１３２０

Mascara
CEZANNE(セザンヌ)…耐久カールマスカラ　￥６３８
　　　　　　　　　 ボリュームラッシュマスカラ　ブラック　￥６３８

Bronzer & Noseshadow
NARS(ナーズ)…ブロンジングパウダー　５１７２(LUGUNA) ミニサイズ

Blush
CEZANNE(セザンヌ)…ナチュラルチークN 17 ウォームブラウン　￥３９６

Highlighter
CEZANNE(セザンヌ)…ミックスカラーチークN　10 ペールハイライト　￥７４８

Lips
MACcosmetics...パウダーキスリップスティック　デュボネ バス　￥３３００

💜HAIR💜
・アイロン…クレイツ ホリスティックキュアーズ　32mm ￥１６５００
・美人巻きカーラー　幅105mm 直径10mm ２個入り　￥４００
・オイル…NiNE(ナイン)　マルチスタイリングオイル　リッチ　100ml　￥３０８０
・hie mist...SABON【TOKYO】

🤍OUTFIT🤍
top:Ungrid
skirt:Re:EDIT
boots:Dr.Martens(動画内ではスペルを間違えています💦すみません🙇‍♀️)
bag:control freak
ear cuff:BAY FLOW
rings:niko and...
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

ヘアメンテしてインナーカラーを入れたので、それにあったヘアセットと、新作コスメをたくさん使ってヘルシーメイクをやってみました🌞
巻き方は一手間加えるだけで、簡単にお洒落になるので、ぜひぜひやってみてね💕
新作コスメもすごく夏にぴったりだったあああ😭🧡✨


Hey,guys!It's healthy makeup tutorial & hair set video.Did you guys enjoy that?👻💕
So if you like it,please give me a thumbs up and subscribe my channel.Bye💋


#ヘルシーメイク #ウェーブヘア #巻き方 #ヘアセットの仕方 #簡単ヘアセット #新作コスメ #崩れにくいベースメイク


楽天ROOMはこちら🧡コスメや日用品、ファッションなどなど載せています✨
　　↓↓↓
https://room.rakuten.co.jp/yurika_room/items



※住所が変わりましたので
もしお手紙など送ってくださる方がいらっしゃいましたら、ご確認お願い致します🙇‍♀️💕
💌お手紙の送り先💌
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
〒107-6228
東京都港区赤坂9-7-1
ミッドタウン・タワー 28階
UUUM株式会社
yurika mul宛


instagram⇨https://www.instagram.com/yuri0813ka/
Twitter⇨https://twitter.com/yurika__0813


楽曲提供：Production Music by http://www.epidemicsound.com


💄とある1日のGet Ready With Me🚙
https://youtu.be/KXQ4rSevmvs
🧡最小限メイク💓ナチュラルメイクの極み🧡
https://youtu.be/f8M1u3PHezI
✨スキンケアroutine〜summer2018〜✨
https://youtu.be/Gp5OJPJsQ9c
🌞モーニングルーティーン🌞
https://youtu.be/6Qnt97zmkzo
🏝Get Ready With Me in Okinawa🌞
https://youtu.be/0CZDMm5pYAU


💋自己紹介💋
https://youtu.be/gDzsO8OIYIc


Thank you💋

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
❤️MAKEUP❤️
Primer
too faced(トゥーフェイスド)…P&P フェイスプライマーセラム 30ml　￥４９００

Concealer
NARS(ナーズ)…ラディアントクリーミーカラーコレクター　00251 LIGHT　￥３９６０
vintorte(ヴァントルテ)…ミネラルシルクコンシーラー ￥２５３０

Foundation
AWAKE(アウェイク)…プットオンアハッピーフェイス ティンティド モイスチュアライザー　01 Light Medium　￥４１８０

Powder
too faced(トゥーフェイスド)…ボーンディスウェイ エセリアル セッティングパウダー　トラベルサイズ　￥２２００

Eyebrows
whomee(フーミー)…アイブロウパウダー　N bright brown　￥１９８０
ETVOS(エトヴォス)…ミネラルカラーリングアイブロウ ココアブラウン ¥２７５０

Eyeshadow
BOBBI BROWN(ボビーブラウン)…リュクスアイシャドウ L05 ヒートレイ、L13 オパールムーンストーン　各￥４６２０
too faced(トゥーフェイスド)…テディベア アイシャドウパレット 　￥６３８０

Eyeliner
CANMAKE(キャンメイク)…クリーミータッチライナー　03 ダークブラウン ￥７１５

Mascara
ヒロインメイク…カールキープ マスカラベース ￥１１００
FASIO(ファシオ)…パワフルカールマスカラEX ロング　BK001

Bronzer & Noseshadow
ジョンセンムル…スキンヌーダー シェーディング パクト　￥３９００

Blush & Highlighter
BOBBI BROWN(ボビーブラウン)…ハイライティングパウダー　デュオ　L01 ピーチグロウ、L02 ピンクグロウ　各￥６６００

Lips
BOBBI BROWN(ボビーブラウン)…エクストラリップティント　L01 ベアピンク、L11 ベアネクター　各￥４６２０

🧡HAIR SET🧡
・アイロン…クレイツ ホリスティックキュアーズ　32mm　￥１６５００
・NiNE(ナイン)…マルチスタイリングオイル リッチ 100ml　￥１８００
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

こんにちは♡Shioneです!
今回はCHITCHATです♡

楽天ROOM
https://room.rakuten.co.jp/room_466cd519a3/items

・FOLLOW ME
https://followme.app/@Shii__


私のチャンネルではメイク・ファッション・ネイル・購入品・お気に入りのアイテムなど私の好きな物やオススメのアイテムなどを動画で紹介しています♡
SNSもたくさん更新しているので是非見てみてください♡

お洋服も作ってます♡
Libecka
・ショップURL♡
https://muuu.com/brand/libecka/

・IHADA 薬用ローション とてもしっとり ¥1,650
https://amzn.to/2SST3Gx

・IHADA 薬用エマルジョン ¥1,760
https://amzn.to/3j1Jm3l

・NARS サマーソルティスアイシャドウパレット ¥6,820
https://www.narscosmetics.jp/sunkissed-bronzing-cream/4535683124829.html?cgid=eyeshadow

・CICA GREEN DERMA MILD CICA BIG SUN CUSHION

・media クリームファンデーション OC-D1
https://amzn.to/3d09Z4G

・ロレアルパリ インファリブルフィニッシングパウダー ¥1,800
https://amzn.to/3iBtK6l

・レブロン カラーステイブロウペンシル ダークブラウン ¥1,320
https://amzn.to/2SL64SB

・セリア シェーディングパウダー 01 ¥110

・コージー アイラッシュカーラー ¥720
https://amzn.to/3tdy3XS

・マジョリカマジョルカ ラッシュボーン ブラックファイバーイン ¥1,240
https://amzn.to/2RAH8wm

・MAC テクナコール グラフブラック

・コージー アクセントカーラー ¥840
https://amzn.to/3d3YU2B

・mac パウダーブラッシュ ジンジャリー ¥3,520
https://www.maccosmetics.jp/product/13842/329/makeup/powder-blush/powder-blush#!/shade/ジンジャリー

・NARS クライマックスエクストリームマスカラ ブラック ¥3,960
https://www.narscosmetics.jp/uncensored-black-climax-extreme-mascara/F35601.html?dwvar_F35601_color=7030&cgid=mascara

・キャンメイク グロウツインカラー 05 ¥715
https://amzn.to/2SS6eaA

・レブロン キスシュガースクラブ ¥814
https://amzn.to/2UslED5

・MAC パウダーキスリキッドリップカラー インパルシブ ¥4,290
https://www.maccosmetics.jp/product/28503/75919/makeup/powder-kiss-liquid-lipcolour#!/shade/インパルシブ

・リネアストリア キューブウィッグ あまゆるウェーブ ミルキーモカブラウン ¥4,980
https://ilovewig.jp/nine-tenths-wig/1120017

楽曲提供：Production Music by http://www.epidemicsound.com


#NARS #CHITCHAT #ミディアムヘアー

・ショップURL♡
https://muuu.com/brand/libecka/


herb URL
http://jp.iherb.com/?rcode=QFL562

instagram
http://instagram.com/shione__1101/

twitter
http://twitter.com/Kuualoha_s