關於 hold it against me ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Dylan100天大了。有人說寶寶100天大是最可愛的時候，你們覺得呢？(正確答案：是的。)
Dylan is already over 100 days old! They say babies are the cutest on this day. What do you think? (The correct answer is: yes.)

寶寶差不多3個月大的’’里程碑’’有下列這些 (每一個寶寶不太一樣，但是如果你的寶寶沒有這些行為的話，建議可以去問看看你的醫生或是專業人士喔！)
Here are some milestones that your baby should have at this age (ask your health provider if you have any questions or concerns):

-寶寶趴撐抬頭
你的寶寶趴著的時候，應該可以把自己的頭跟胸部抬起來。
他們應該可以用手支撐自己的上半身。
Hope you’re doing tummy time!
Your baby should be able to lift up his/her head and chest when lying on their stomach.
See if they can support their upper body with their arms.

-給我給我給我！
他們的手掌會開始開關開關。
實在是太可愛了，誰不愛寶寶的手指頭跟腳趾頭？
這時候也是最適合把一些可以咬的或是磨牙的玩具給他們放在手裡。
可以讓他們有不同的觸感。
Give me that! Give me that!
Their hands should be able to open and close.
Which is oh so cute. Who doesn’t love baby fingers.
But that also means it’s perfect to start putting some chew toys or textured toys into their hands so they can experience different feelings.

-餓餓餓
既然這些可以咬的玩具都在手裡了，寶寶基本上應該 (或是一定！)會放進去嘴巴裡面。
如果手裡沒有玩具，手就會被當成“玩具“放進去嘴巴裡面。
Nom nom nom…
And since those things are in the hands, you better believe it will go INTO the mouth.
And if there’s nothing in the hands, the hands will go into the mouth.

-推推推！
寶寶開始走路了！！！哈哈，開玩笑的啦！但...如果你把寶寶立起來，讓他的腳碰到地板或是其他東西，他會踢或推。如果是躺著也一樣，只要有東西在腳那邊，他們應該會想踢或推。
Push it!
Your baby is walking!! No, just kidding. BUT, if you hold your baby up with the feet touching the floor, they should be pushing up. Or if they’re lying down and there’s something against their feet, the kick and push.

-用愛的眼神看著你！哈哈
寶寶這個時候可以看得到你了，也開始認得你，所以會一直一直一直看你。
眼睛也會跟著你或是玩具動。
還有跟著聲音動 (太大的聲音也會嚇到他們喔！)
寶寶也會發出聲音了！
好好享受那些叭叭叭、嘛嘛嘛、哪哪哪的聲音，有時候也會模仿你講的東西喔！
Stare lovingly at you.
Babies at this age should be able to stare at you intently.
AND also follow movement.
And follow sounds (loud sounds may make them cry!)
And MAKE sounds!
Enjoy the babbling, and gurgling, and occasional mimicking of your sounds and words.

-當然，還有笑容！哎呀，那個會讓你融化的笑容。
3個月大的寶寶，應該可以對你笑了！沒錯，你每次一定會拍至少12萬5千6百27張照片。
And of course, THE SMILE.
By 3 months, babies should be smiling and yes, you will take 125,627 pictures every time they do.

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”

Too often we hold ourselves up against others: they are more ____ ; they have more ____. Etc.

To state these as realities and accept them as they are and then move on to work on ourselves for ourselves would be totally fine; what often ends up happening is that we take these realities and compare, beat ourselves up and let it peel away at our own self-worth.

It is important to notice what others are doing, engage with others in order to notice more and learn from how different we all are and how we do things. But from seeing, hearing and then learning, should be the path to a better self ALONG SIDE others.
We watch and learn, but we are only competing against ourselves.

If you are not sure if you needed to read this, let me ask you this: Are you happy at this moment? Like, TRULY happy? Content with all that you have, all that you can do and all that you are doing?

Swipe left for an exercise to try this coming week, and like, comment and save so I know you would like more wisdom from MaMaMandeeeee 👵🏼♥️

#mandeeeeesays
#mandeeeeeeootd

Top @lovebonito
Jeans @uniqlo_hk_macau
Belt vintage off @etsy
Shoes @ash #ashgirls @ Hong Kong

【How Great Is Our God 我神真偉大】
作曲/作詞 Writers : Chris Tomlin, Ed Cash, Jesse Reeves
翻譯 Translation : 約書亞樂團

【Worthy 配得】
作曲/作詞 Writers : Steven Furtick, Chris Brown, Mack Brock
翻譯 Translation : The Hope

【What A Beautiful Name 祢的聖名何等美麗 】
作曲/作詞 Writers : Ben Fielding, Brooke Ligertwood
翻譯 Translation : The Hope

Lyrics:
The splendor of a King
尊貴榮耀君王
clothed in majesty
在全地之上
Let all the earth rejoice
願萬民都喜樂
All the earth rejoice
全地都喜樂
He wraps himself in Light
主祢滿有榮光
and darkness tries to hide
黑暗都躲藏
And trembles at His voice
萬民高聲唱
Trembles at His voice
齊來高聲唱

How great is our God
我神 真偉大
sing with me How great is our God
歌頌祢聖名 真偉大
and all will see How great
全地都看見
how great is our God
我神 真偉大

Age to age He stands
昔在永在君王
And time is in His hands
從今直到永遠
Beginning and the end
祢從不曾改變
Beginning and the end
永存在天地間
The Godhead Three in One
祢是三一真神
Father Spirit Son
父子與聖靈
The Lion and the Lamb
真神的羔羊
The Lion and the Lamb
全能神羔羊

Name above all names
祢至聖尊名
Worthy of our praise
配受大讚美
My heart will sing
全心歌頌
How great is our God
我神 真偉大
-
Worthy is your name Jesus
耶穌 祢聖名配得
You deserve the praise
祢配得一切頌讚
Worthy is your name
祢聖名配得
-
Death could not hold You
The veil tore before You
死亡被打敗 幔子已裂開

You silence the boast of sin and grave
祢使仇敵的口都靜默

The heavens are roaring
the praise of Your glory
天堂在歌頌 讚美祢尊榮

For You are raised to life again
因祢已從死裡復活

You have no rival
You have no equal
祢無人能敵 無人能相比

Now and forever God You reign
從今到永遠 祢掌權

Yours is the kingdom
Yours is the glory
國度屬於祢 榮耀屬於祢

Yours is the Name above all Names
祢的聖名超乎萬名

What a powerful Name it is
祢的聖名滿有能力
The Name of Jesus Christ my King
耶穌基督我王的名

What a powerful Name it is
Nothing can stand against
祢的聖名滿有能力 無事物能相比

What a powerful Name it is
The Name of Jesus
祢的聖名滿有能力 耶穌的聖名

【How Great Is Our God 我神真偉大】
© 2004 sixsteps Music (Admin. by Capitol CMG Publishing),worshiptogether.com songs (Admin. by Capitol CMG Publishing),Wondrously Made Songs (Admin. by Music Services, Inc.)
CCLI : 4348399

【Worthy 配得】
© 2018 Elevation Worship Publishing (BMI)
CCLI : 7111931

【What A Beautiful Name 祢的聖名何等美麗 】
© 2016 Hillsong Music Publishing (Admin. by Capitol CMG Publishing)
CCLI : 7068424

#HowGreatIsOurGod #Worthy #WhatABeautifulName #TheHopeWorship

☆第一次收看Hope頻道/線上Hope主日嗎？
歡迎你填寫表單，讓我們更多認識你：http://thehope.co/connectonline

☆如果你需要代禱，歡迎填寫表單，讓我們和你一起禱告：http://thehope.co/connectonline

☆如果你已經決定接受耶穌：http://thehope.co/connectonline

☆支持The Hope的事工，一起成為城市的盼望：
http://thehope.co/give


【The Hope】
The Hope 是一個對神、對人、以及生命充滿熱忱的教會。我們的存在是為了要接觸人群, 帶領他們與耶穌有更深的關係。


【與我們保持聯繫】
●The Hope Website: http://thehope.co/
●The Hope Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/insideTheHope
●The Hope Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thehope.co/

One of my fav songs by Ed, hope you enjoy it as much as I do! :)

Follow me for more at:
Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/meernash/?hl=en
Twitter - https://mobile.twitter.com/MeerNash?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Tiktok - https://t.tiktok.com/i18n/share/user/6759021806563230722
Facebook - https://m.facebook.com/meernashMN/

Lyrics:

Stop the clocks, it's amazing
You should see the way the light dances off your head
A million colours of hazel, golden and red
Saturday morning is fading
The sun's reflected by the coffee in your hand

My eyes are caught in your gaze all over again
We were love drunk, waiting on a miracle
Tryna find ourselves in the winter snow
So alone in love like the world had disappeared
Oh, I won't be silent and I won't let go
I will hold on tighter 'til the afterglow
And we'll burn so bright 'til the darkness softly clears

Oh, I will hold on to the afterglow
Oh, I will hold on to the afterglow

The weather outside's changing
The leaves are buried under six inches of white
The radio is playing, Iron & Wine
This is a new dimension
This is a level where we're losing track of time
I'm holding nothing against it, except you and I

We were love drunk, waiting on a miracle
Tryna find ourselves in the winter snow
So alone in love like the world had disappeared
Oh, I won't be silent and I won't let go
I will hold on tighter 'til the afterglow
And we'll burn so bright 'til the darkness softly clears

Oh, I will hold on to the afterglow
Oh, I will hold on to the afterglow
Oh, I will hold on to the afterglow

Thanks for watching! xoxo :)

■ 更多林子安：
INSTAGRAM：https://www.instagram.com/an__official/
FACEBOOK：https://www.facebook.com/Anviolin/
WEIBO：http://weibo.com/u/6511795600
Spotify：https://spoti.fi/2XmfcLw

各式工作演出邀約請私訊IG或臉書專頁
For business, please send private message to my Instagram or Facebook fan page.

■ 更多【Cover by AnViolin】：https://bit.ly/2vWVtF5

🎶樂譜連結 Sheet Music🎶
https://gumroad.com/anviolin
（台灣請用蝦皮）https://shopee.tw/anviolin

--

《白月光與硃砂痣》小提琴版本 | Violin cover by Lin Tzu An of《Bai Yue Guang Yu Zhu Sha Zhi》

大家知道白月光與硃砂痣這個比喻的典故嗎？
來來～～～大年初一聽cover長知識～～～
白月光朱砂痣的典故出處是張愛玲的小說《紅玫瑰與白玫瑰》，白月光指的是可望而不可及的人事物，常常和「朱砂痣」對應。原文是這樣的：「也許每一個男子全都有過這樣的兩個女人，至少兩個。 娶了紅玫瑰，久而久之，紅的變了牆上的一抹蚊子血，白的還是『床前明月光』； 娶了白玫瑰，白的便是衣服上的一粒飯粘子，紅的卻是心口上的一顆朱砂痣。」

大家有沒有發現「白月光」和「紅玫瑰」這兩個意象從本質上來說是一樣的，代表男人生命中遇到的各色性格不同又難以忘懷的女孩子，都是指愛而不得未能相守的遺憾，再加上所有回憶都停留最相愛的時候，不會去經歷柴米油鹽與漫長時光的折磨，反而停留在當初的美好時光，所以更令人難忘，成為觸不可及的床前明月光，刻在心頭無法忘懷的朱砂痣。

這其實是張愛玲對感情的悲觀意象，並不是白月光紅玫瑰本身有多麼美好，只是因為無法相守，而「得不到的永遠在騷動」，我們的才女張女士除了諷刺渣男喜新厭舊外，還有反對父權壓迫的層次內涵，張愛玲的諷刺總是非常辛辣的，算是早期辣妹代表啊🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️

所以以後有另一半對著我各位有水準的聽眾說「寶貝，我覺得你就是我的朱砂痣」，先忍住不要打下去，請他來看我這篇，順便刷刷我的頻道吧🤓

歡迎大家在沒有下雨的週末到信義區香堤大道，聽cover歌曲的live版！詳細演出相關資訊，我都會更新在我的Instagram 限時動態！

--

Do you guys know the metaphor from the book, Red Rose, White Rose, by Eileen Chang?
She used the metaphor of the red roses and white roses to refer to the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, and trying to oppose against patriarchy.

It is not romantic at all when someone you are dating with say this to you (retarded tbh LOL) Please hold back your fists and cool down and tell the one to visit my post and enjoy my cover okay🤓

Should you have any request regarding cover songs, just comment below and let me know.
Also please share the video and subscribe to my channel https://bit.ly/2EsTGMQ.
Don't forget to click the 🔔 bell to be notified when my videos come out!

Another week, another cover. Let's goooo, hope y’all like this!

Visit me at Taipei Shin Kong Mitsukoshi Xinyi Plaza to enjoy more my live cover songs. Check it out details on my Instagram stories!

--

編曲Arrange：林子安 Lin Tzu An
混音mix：林子安 Lin Tzu An
小提琴 Violin: 林子安 Lin Tzu An
攝影師剪接師 Photographer & Film editor: Santon.W
文字編輯 Social media editor/manager: Lily Wu

--

🎻Sponsor AnViolin🎻
如果你喜歡我的影片的話，歡迎贊助我，讓我有更多資源去提升畫面與音樂。
贊助連結：
（台灣請用歐付寶）歐付寶：https://p.opay.tw/77sBF
（Via Paypal）Sponsorship：https://www.paypal.me/Anviolin

--

【Cover by AnViolin】每週上傳新的小提琴cover影片，
喜歡的話請訂閱我的頻道 https://bit.ly/2EsTGMQ
也記得開啟🔔訂閱通知，按讚留言分享給你家人朋友看！

還想看子安cover什麼歌？留言跟我說 ！

--

#白月光與硃砂痣
#張愛玲
#AnViolin
#白月光與硃砂痣violin
#CoverSong
#ViolinCover
#CoverByAn
#林子安
#林子安小提琴