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

God is Not Like Man

“Pilate therefore went out to them, and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” They answered him, “If this man weren’t an evildoer, we wouldn’t have delivered him up to you.” Pilate therefore said to them, “Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.” Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,” that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke, signifying by what kind of death he should die.” (John‬ ‭18:29-32‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Look how the religious leaders of Israel had murder in their hearts but were unable to do it because they were restricted by the Law.

They keep the Law outwardly just for the public eye, and looked for ways to get around the Law to execute their murderous schemes.

While they looked for any loophole to commit murder, God used His infinite wisdom and knowledge to find a way to save mankind.

Under the Law, God said that the soul who sins must die. In Paul’s words, “the wages of sin is death”.

There was only one way for us to be saved because we cannot fulfill the demands of the Law by ourselves. Someone else must die in our place as a substitute.

This person must be a member of mankind, sinless, and his life has to be worthy enough to pay for all the sins of the world.

That is why the only begotten Son of God had to become a man, bleed, and die as our atoning sacrifice for sins.

Today, we are saved, blessed, and favored by God not because of our own obedience towards the Law, but because of the shed blood of Jesus Christ. His sinless, divine blood is a massive overpayment for all our sin debts, purchasing every spiritual blessing of God for us.

I read someone write that “your sin can hinder your prayers”. If that were true, then no Christians would have any answered prayers because we still fail God daily, in thoughts and deeds. We may not be able to live a completely sinless life, but thankfully our prayers are answered based on Jesus’ obedience at the cross. His shed blood is the only reason why we can always enjoy God’s favor.

Let no one deceive you that sin is causing God to ignore your prayers. If God is omniscient, then He already knew all the sins you would commit in your life, and He still chose to let Jesus bear the punishment for your sins at the cross.

What hinders us from receiving God’s promises today is only unbelief. When you have a bad opinion of God and see Him angry, demanding, and unapproachable, you will be unable to freely receive all that Jesus died for you to enjoy.

Paul taught that no one can be justified through the works of the Law. Not before salvation, and not after salvation. God is so gracious that He made us the righteousness of God in Christ when we believed in Jesus as Lord.

Abba God has the perfect, righteous reason to lavish His goodness upon you. Through your prayers of intercession, the people around you are also blessed.

Some well-meaning Christians want to live godly through keeping the Law as a moral guideline, but it only serves to stir up sin’s rebellion in our flesh. They will experience short-lived victories ,only to fall back into sinful patterns when the willpower runs out.

When you place your faith in God after receiving His Word, you will be progressively transformed to live a righteous life. The goal of godly living is the same, but the only way to get there is by beholding Jesus and trusting in Him.

Live by the new and better covenant that is built upon better promises, and you will reign in life through the one Lord Jesus Christ!

The four gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are full of precious revelations of God’s truths and promises. When you get this four eBook bundle, you will learn the meaning of every one of Jesus’ miracles, parables, words, and deeds. Let this resource replace wrong legalistic beliefs, and position you to receive the abundance of God’s Grace through unhindered faith!

A customer, Linda B, said this about the eBook bundle: “Well worth the money. Wish I had done it sooner. Wonderful study.”

Get “Understand the Four Gospels Through the Lens of Grace” now ===> https://www.miltongoh.net/store/p18/understand-the-four-gospels-through-the-lens-of-grace.html

#NFTsummer A few weeks ago, we interviewed Xixi Huang (AW#17) in Mandarin and as the AppWorks Fellow who helps us out on the blockchain side, Xixi has a lot of ideas that are worth sharing to a bigger audience. Here's his interview in English:

西西 (Xixi) 黃士晉 is an AppWorks #17 alumni and co-founder of Rydeit. His mission is to bring the applications of blockchain to everyday life because he believes that blockchain can make the world a more fair and better place. As an AppWorks Fellow, he is responsible for guiding founders to think about blockchain and providing insights on blockchain-related investment deals. Before AppWorks, he led his previous team to build more than 10 dapps, including famous games in Taiwan such as 柚子打魚 and Shrimp.Finance. Within a month of launching these games, they had amassed over NT$ 100M (~US$ 3.5M) in transactions. His favorite pastime is traveling with his grandma, and his ultimate goal is to persuade her to buy Bitcoin!

Check out what Xixi has to say about blockchain and NFTs.

#NFTevolution

I started to learn how to write smart contracts in 2016, and learned the entire logic of ERC-20 for tokens and ERC-721 for NFTs. While I was learning about NFTs, I realized that the combination of NFTs with video games was very fitting. In video games, the treasure and equipment you collect becomes virtual assets as NFTs. And the process of using smart contracts to exchange items was very efficient on the blockchain.

At the end of 2018, I designed and created a zombie video game, integrating the concept of playing and drawing cards and packs. Within a pack were 3 NFTs with zombies on them. As a player, the more cards with zombies you collect, the higher your score, and the more tokens you can ultimately earn. From this game, I got connected to other game manufacturers and publishers who were also interested in creating virtual game assets through NFTs. We all had the same idea -- NFTs can bring more meaning and value to the players.

However at the time, many people in the market still believed that tokens and games were riddled with fraud. Since the lifecycle of video games can be short, many traditional gaming companies in the end didn’t find it worthwhile to learn how to integrate NFTs or blockchain into their games.

While the nature of NFTs hasn’t changed, the market has evolved. People’s curiosities are growing, more applications are being developed, and more creators are cropping up. I think now is the right time to start talking to companies about how to integrate NFTs or blockchain into their businesses or games.

#NFTplayground

I think there are many opportunities to start a business these days, and people who want to start one should think about coming to blockchain. Not only is there a huge opportunity but the possibilities are endless. And within blockchain, NFTs currently offer the biggest opportunity. However, it can also pose a new challenge to the team’s endurance, because while easy to obtain traction and users with NFTs, the challenge lies in retaining them.

Similar to other blockchain applications in the past few years, when a new concept is invented, it’ll be flushed with many early users. However, because the surrounding infrastructure wasn’t in place, it was difficult for founders to make valuable extensions or applications. And many of these users don’t actually care about these blockchain products and they are only trying to leverage the ecosystem to make a quick buck. Once they earn all that they can, they will move on to another project.

Right now working on NFTs, you can collect a lot of data in a short amount of time and also make some income to keep you afloat. Founders should seize this opportunity to understand these users, then modify and optimize both their products and mentality to retain them.

Since there’s no geographical restriction on blockchain, I would encourage founders to look beyond your country and region in expanding your NFT products. Also, since blockchain is closely related to finance, if you don’t have a good pricing strategy (or token economics) for your NFT products, the prices might fluctuate greatly. You need to be prepared and remind your users of the risks, otherwise you’ll ultimately get scolded!!

#NFTera

This year, I finally consider myself an official NFT collector. I pay special attention to NFTs with contemporary significance, such as Hashmasks. It signals to the public that NFTs are not just for collecting but that game mechanics can also be applied to interact with users. If we look back ten years from now I’m confident to say that the project that really brought the NFT wave in 2021 would be Hashmasks.

In addition to veteran projects like Hashmasks, other collections I care a lot about are related to Metaverse, such as The Sandbox. I believe that the world will become more and more decentralized and virtual. It is very likely that the next generation will be immersed in a virtual world like Ready Player One, so I am also very optimistic about NFTs in digital worlds like The Sandbox.

The possibilities are endless when it comes to NFTs. Right now, few NFTs are connected with our daily lives. For example, I bought a Hashmask. If I want to show it in my apartment, I might still need to print it out. In the future, how will we connect NFTs to the physical world? I believe they can be applied in many ways, including frames, wallets, cars, house deeds, leases, etc. These products in daily life can be combined with NFTs. We just haven’t opened our imagination yet. It’s hard to imagine that only 20 years ago we were having a hard time believing in the power of the internet.

The development of science and technology not only relies on infrastructure, but also the user's learning curve. The world needs to talk about blockchain more, so that everyone will gradually become familiar with it and it’ll continue to evolve.

If you're a founder working in blockchain or NFTs, welcome to apply to AppWorks >> https://bit.ly/3w0WyIl

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”

"若榮耀換來快樂，為何你仍如此憔悴?"

－－－－－－－

''Get Your Wish''
「當我開始寫這張專輯時，我正在努力思考一些沉重的問題：為什麼我要拿這個東西折磨自己？有什麼是我希望發生但還沒發生的？為什麼我必須再次證明自己？你在這首歌裡會聽到我的答案，它的靈感來自 Bon Iver 的專輯《22, A Million》。我是在我弟弟得到癌症時發現那張專輯的。那時後我真的沒有辦法做音樂，但那張專輯讓我覺得稍微開朗了一點，感覺比較有希望了。當我想到那張專輯對我的意義有多重大時，我才發現最重要的是做出能讓人產生共鳴、讓世界變得稍微不那麼爛的音樂。〈Get Your Wish〉是我剛恢復狀態後寫的第一首歌。」

From the forthcoming Porter Robinson album, "Nurture"

🎧 Stream: http://porter.fm/getyourwish

▼ Follow Porter Robinson:
http://porter.fm/facebook
http://porter.fm/twitter
http://porter.fm/instagram
http://porter.fm/youtube

▼ Follow Ray Shen:
https://www.facebook.com/djRayShen/
https://www.youtube.com/c/RayShen0429
https://www.instagram.com/ray_shen0429/
https://soundcloud.com/ray-shen-3
https://www.mixcloud.com/ray-shen/
https://twitter.com/RayShen0429

I'll make it right
我會將一切導正

"Again but it's no use"
"那樣也於事無補"

You said
你這麼說

As my hunger grows and grows
隨著我的慾望逐漸變多

I have to write
我必須紀錄下來

The meaning of my life
我存活於世的意義

Or else everything's in vain
不然一切皆是徒勞

When the glory tries to tempt you
當榮耀試圖讓你困惑

It may seem like what you need
那也許看似是你所需

But if glory makes you happy
但若榮耀換來快樂

Why are you so broken up?
為何你仍如此憔悴?

So tell me
所以告訴我

How it felt
感覺如何呢

When you walked on water
當你的夢想達成

Did you get your wish?
你有得到自己想要的了嗎?

Floating to the surface
浮上來到表面

Quicker than you sank
比向下沉淪快

Idol
不必當

Idol
他人的偶像

So tell me
所以告訴我吧

How it felt
那是何樣的感受

When you walked on water
當你實現了不可能

Did you get your wish?
你是否如願以償了呢?

Floating to the surface
浮上水平面來

Quicker than you sank
比向下沉沒快

Idol
我懂

Idol
我懂

Don't say you lose
先別認輸

Just yet get up and move
起身繼續奮鬥

Ahead
前進

And not only for yourself
這不僅是為了自己而已

Cause that's your role
因為世界就是如此運作

The work that stirred your soul
喚起你的靈魂行動

You can make for someone else
讓你能為他人做到

One day you choke
有天你恍然大悟

Your urges overflow
內心的慾望滿溢而出

And obsession wears you down
但執念將你往下拖

But don't you waste
不要浪費

The suffering you've faced
一切痛苦你所面對

It will serve you in due time
將來你仍能從中收穫

So tell me
所以告訴我

How it felt
感覺如何呢

When you walked on water
當你的夢想達成

Did you get your wish?
得到自己想要的了嗎?

Floating to the surface
浮上來到表面

Quicker than you sank
比向下沉淪快

Idol
不必當

Idol
他人的偶像

So tell me
告訴我吧

How it felt
感受如何呢

When you walked on water
當你實現了不可能

Did you get your wish?
你得到自己所想要的了嗎?

Floating to the surface
浮上水平面來

Quicker than you sank
比向下沉淪快

Idol
我懂

Idol
我懂

So tell me
告訴我

歌詞翻譯by Ray

作詞/作曲：Porter Robinson

HUGE sale 50% OFF Everything on StevesPOV.com FREE Shipping too! Limited quantities available!
In the past I've been called a Weeaboo every now and then... Quite honestly I never understood the meaning so I decided to look into the meaning a little further... I read write and speak Japanese.. I don't watch animation and never read any manga... am I weeaboo? please let me know!!

Steve's POV / Thumbs Up Shop:
https://www.stevespov.com

Steve's POV Amazon Japan Store:
https://amzn.to/2J1lHyu

My Favorite Japanese Products
https://yagiselect.com

Top 5 Recent Videos:

Omotenashi from Japan to USA via Ebay??
https://youtu.be/U8GiJoETCF0

Nissan Cima Y31 in USA
https://youtu.be/v9BJ-QpFOAw

Drove The Loudest Ferrari in All Japan!
https://youtu.be/iJvR2RwA9Kw

Americans Who Love Classic JDM Cars
https://youtu.be/OjMfPcfyKSA

Japan's Amazing Modded RC Trucks, Cars and Legos!
https://youtu.be/FUyWJGI9s_I

All videos presented in both Japan and English.

New Releases 3-4 Times Weekly

◆PLEASE SUBSCRIBE◆
http://www.youtube.com/user/steevie333?sub_confirmation=1

Please visit my sites:
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/StevesPOV
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/StevesPOV
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/StevesPOV
Ebay Store: https://ebay.to/2JjAKTU
StevesPOV Web: http://www.StevesPOV.com
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/shop/stevespov

Steve's POV Real Estate Instagram
http://www.instagram.com/carsncastles

Steve Feldman “Steve’s POV” Realtor (Keller Williams) website
https://stevefeldmanrealtor.com

Music from Epidemic Sound
http://www.epidemicsound.com

Steve's POV
スティーブ的視点

#StevesPOV #weeaboo #animeotaku #otaku #aniota

「like a child in the rain, searching for anything...」

Buy our 2019 Calendar featuring songs from our new album now at:
https://www.facebook.com/commerce/products/1836550436472984/

《Missing Grass》a song from our 2019 project「Ripples, reflections and everything in between」available now on:

Apple Music: https://apple.co/2CdKxGt
iTunes: https://apple.co/2Uwa44K
Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2C9font
JOOX: https://joox.page.link/svXx6
KKBOX: https://kkbox.fm/PA3Ktf
MOOV: https://s.moov.hk/r?s=NbrBb5
MusicOne: https://bit.ly/2SYrhT0
Amazon Music: https://amzn.to/2Uq9QfK
StreetVoice: https://streetvoice.com/perse/songs/576716/
myMusic: https://bit.ly/2UsGUDG
蝦米音樂: https://bit.ly/2XY7abo
網易雲音樂: https://bit.ly/2HpLG1a

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/persehk
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/persehk
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/persehk
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/persehkofficial
contact us: persehkmusic@gmail.com

per se:
Stephen Mok - vocals, guitars
Sandy Ip - vocals, keyboards

【Missing Grass】// mark in time
Composed // per se
Lyrics // Stephen Mok @ per se
Arranged // per se
Produced // Victor Tse & Stephen Mok @ per se

running through life
like a child in the rain
never knew time would play the part of the playwright
lasting a lifetime

you look to the sky
searching for anything
to show you a sign
show you the meaning of life
something to live by

when all your days go by
when all your days go by

Everest will fall, aeons gone
wondering what in life carries on
At the end of the day, faces fade away
If this is goodbye, sing your song

lost in the crowd
stumbling, scrambling
trying to climb
out of this everyday timeline
place where the birds fly

when all your days go by
(story left behind)
with pages yet to write

deep in the night
you lie there alone with your eyes opened wide
watching the years as they pass by
someday you’ll be gone
now coping with fear
you raise up your hand write your name in the air
paint all the people you hold dear
till all can hear your song
till all can hear your song

like a child in the rain
searching for anything
like a child in the rain
searching for anything


OP: Frenzi Music Limited admin by Sony/ATV Music Publishing Ltd (Hong Kong)