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

TỪ VỰNG CHỦ ĐỀ EDUCATION [Gồm Thành ngữ + Từ vựng chung + Bài mẫu]
🎗PHẦN THÀNH NGỮ
- to learn something by heart = to learn something so well that it can be written or recited without any effort: học thuộc lòng
- bookworm = a person who reads a lot: mọt sách
- teacher’s pet = a student in a class who is liked best by the teacher and therefore treated better than the other students: học sinh cưng của giáo viên, được giáo viên yêu thích
- to draw a blank = to fail to get an answer or a result: không tìm thấy hay nhớ ra điều gì
- copycat = someone who has few ideas of their own and does or says exactly the same as someone else: người bắt chước ý tưởng của người khác
- to get the hang of something = to learn how to do something, esp. when it is not simple or obvious: hiểu cách làm gì, học cách làm gì đó
- to burn the midnight oil = to study/work late into the night: thức khuya để học/làm việc
- to pass with flying colours = If you do something such as pass an exam with flying colours, you do it very successfully: đỗ/đậu … 1 cách dễ dàng
- to go back to basis = to return to teaching or paying attention to the most important aspects of a subject or activity: quay lại những điều cốt lõi
- to cover a lot of ground = to review a large amount of information or discuss many topics: xem lại thật nhiều tài liệu, thông tin

🎗TỪ VỰNG EDUCATION
- to get higher academic results: đạt được kết quả học tập cao
- to study abroad = to study in a different country: du học
- to drop out of school: bỏ học
- to gain international qualifications: có được bằng cấp quốc tế
- to improve educational outcomes: nâng cao đầu ra của giáo dục
- to top international educational league tables: xếp đầu bảng giáo dục quốc tế
- to encourage independent learning: thúc đẩy việc tự học
to pass/fail the exam: đậu/ rớt kỳ thi
- to gain in-depth knowledge: có được kiến thức sâu sắc
- core subjects such as science, English and maths: những môn học nòng cốt như khoa học, tiếng Anh và toán
- to have the opportunity to … : có cơ hội làm gì
- to interact and take part in group work activities: tương tác và tham gia vào các hoạt động nhóm
- opposite-sex classmates: bạn khác giới
- to learn a wide range of skills: học được các kỹ năng khác nhau
- communication or teamwork skils: kỹ năng giao tiếp hay làm việc nhóm
- co-existence and gender equality: sự cùng tồn tại và sự bình đẳng giới

🎗TỪ VỰNG STUDY ABROAD
▪LỢI ÍCH
- It gives you the opportunity to experience a different way of living/ make new friends: Nó mang đến cho bạn cơ hội trải nghiệm một cách sống khác / kết bạn mới.
- Living on your own while studying abroad makes you more independent because you have to learn to cook, clean, pay bills and take care of yourself: Sống một mình trong khi du học ở nước ngoài làm bạn trở nên tự lập hơn vì bạn phải học cách nấu ăn, dọn dẹp, chi trả hóa đơn và chăm sóc chính bản thân bạn.
- You can learn invaluable life lessons and practical skills such as stress management, communication or problem-solving skills which are very important for your future career: - Bạn có thể học các bài học cuộc sống vô giá và các kỹ năng thực hành như quản lý căng thẳng, giao tiếp hoặc kỹ năng giải quyết vấn đề rất quan trọng cho sự nghiệp tương lai của bạn.
- It gives you the chance to improve your speaking skills: Nó mang lại cho bạn cơ hội để cải thiện kỹ năng nói của bạn.
- Recruiters tend to favour candidates graduating from an international university over those who don’t have any international qualification: Các nhà tuyển dụng có khuynh hướng ưu ái các ứng cử viên tốt nghiệp từ một trường đại học quốc tế hơn là những người không có bằng cấp quốc tế.

▪KHÓ KHĂN
- You might encounter culture shock and other culture-related problems: Bạn có thể gặp phải cú sốc văn hóa và các vấn đề liên quan đến văn hóa khác.
- Living costs in some countries are very high. Many overseas students have to do a part-time job to pay for their bills. This can affect their studies: Chi phí sinh hoạt ở một số nước rất cao. Nhiều sinh viên nước ngoài phải làm công việc bán thời gian để trả tiền cho hóa đơn của họ. Điều này có thể ảnh hưởng đến việc học của họ.
- You might experience feelings of frustration, loneliness and homesickness: Bạn có thể cảm thấy thất vọng, cô đơn và nhớ nhà
- If you are struggling with the language of the country you are hoping to study in, you will face lots of problems: Nếu bạn đang gặp khó khăn với ngôn ngữ của đất nước mà bạn đang hy vọng được học tập, bạn sẽ gặp rất nhiều vấn đề.

👉👉 PHẦN BÀI MẪU: Page mình xem ở đây nhé:
https://ielts-nguyenhuyen.com/tu-vung-ielts-writing-chu-de-education/

Tell me about your dreams.

Recently I listened to the podcast by @lucasrockwood where he talks about the power of dreams with @charlie_morley_lucid_dreaming. That we can become more aware of our dreams and how that can help us to be more creative.

This got me thinking, are we resting and sleeping enough? If you ask around, most people will tell you no. And I have heard stories and claims from friends and students that sometimes even after yoga or a workout, they don’t feel more relaxed. Why is that?

I will attempt to answer that. First when we go to a yoga class or a workout, we tend to expect that we must achieve something or trying to reach a state, or gain muscle mass, rather than just trusting the process, having fun and being present. Yes, while trying to achieve a pose might be important, but staying focused and breathing in your class or practice can help you reach mental and spiritual relaxation, which is a higher form of relaxation - the kind that will help you truly relax and sleep.

Secondly, we subject ourselves in a highly stimulated environment: work, smart devices, violent or horror shows, sensationalised news. Try to limit your time you spent on these things. You will definitely find it easier to unwind and relax.

And if all else fails, read a book (this puts me to sleep every time!) and do simple #supinetwist as shown in this picture. If you can’t reach your foot with the leg straight, use a strap or a towel to connect your hand and your foot. Do both sides and in each side stay for about 2-3 minutes.

Assuming you can sleep now and your dreams will flow, @charlie_morley_lucid_dreaming went on to say that we should journal our dreams so that we can build up a memory for our dreams and that will help us become more aware of our dreams. That sounds pretty amazing because dreams are really important. From the dreams that I can remember, sometimes I do find solutions or answers for the things that have been puzzling me at work. Charlie even claims that within a few weeks of dream journaling, you will already start to see results.

Wanna give it a try?

#relaxation #bettersleep #yoga #dreaming #luciddreams #luciddreams #yogaforbettersleep

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”

I made this choreography 3 years ago on a famous traditional Taiwanese song.

The song is about wives in the Taiwanese culture. Supporting and taking care of their family is the most important thing for them. What makes them happy is to be with their husband and no matter how hard life can be, they will still hold each other hands.

It may sound old fashioned. Today, women are independent but the core idea is the same. We are strong for the ones we love, having mutual respect and supporting each other definitely bring happiness. In that way, the lyrics are still touching.

I wanted to get a deeper connection with this subject so I used a dress that my grandmother used to wear in the 60's/70's! 👗🥰
Hope you'll enjoy it 🧡

🎶 ：#家後
🎤 ：#江蕙
#tapdance #踢踏舞
如果你喜歡今天的影片的話請幫我按讚訂閱加分享喔！！！ 對我們的演出或踢踏舞或是對我有興趣（？！🤣）的話也歡迎追蹤我的IG，會有更多演出資訊唷！！
我們下支影片見囉！謝謝～～～🧡

Thank you for watching my video and hope you enjoy it :)
Plz thumb up, share to your friends and subscribe to my channel if you like and wanna support me! Thanks!!
Oh! And follow me on instagram :)
See you in next video! xoxo
Also check my other videos! Thank you!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
About Me 🙋🏻‍♀️: ：

Cindy Huang
踢踏/街舞舞者
曾隨舞工廠舞團赴LA.紐約.香港演出，並參與舞工廠舞團年度製作以及各年台北踢踏節的編舞及演出，並於2015年赴L.A、紐約半年，進修街舞及踢踏舞。
所屬街舞團體TSC曾獲得 Adidas 大專盃街舞大賽冠軍、亞洲捷運盃街舞大賽冠軍、Adidas 女子創意街舞大賽冠軍⋯等。並擔任SHE、MP魔幻力量、丁噹、周湯豪、王心凌、蕭秉治⋯等藝人舞者,參與巡迴演唱會、電視錄影、跨年、頒獎典禮等各大演出。

SUBSCRIBE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaSTA427diQdA4JvEdaJ0ww/

INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/cindy_huang15/

📧: cindy1152002@gmail.com

How to be creative? You have to find inspiration, it doesn't find you.

1) I really have to care about the subject because if I don't, it's hard for me to tap into my subconscious to allow inspiration to happen. Caring about someone and something is personal. More often than not, it's a form of responsibility for me. Other times, it's pure fun and entertainment. So, if your job is to be creative, find a reason and conviction for the project at hand because caring about the project is your source of energy, so you may be brave to take the lead to dive deep into the abyss of the creative unknown.

2) If you are scared? Find inputs. Do research. Consciously feeding my subconscious mind is one of the most important steps I do for staying creative. Nothing is original. Every original man-made creation is an inspiration from everyday life, an alchemy of great ideas, or a hybrid of someone else's work. That is just the way it is.

3) Tap into your subconscious. Take time for it. Take a walk. Go for a jog. Take a shower. Now we talk about science. Our subconscious mind is the most active when we are relaxed. Our conscious mind pays attention to information all around us at the moment, but our subconscious mind contains the other 99% of the information we have come across in our entire lives. Such a powerful machine, why not tap into it? Now we wonder how many of the great ideas we know today were conceived while sitting on the toilets.

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dw_kid12/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/deepwebkid/?modal=admin_todo_tour
訂閱: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKC6E5s6CMT5sVBInKBbPDQ?sub_confirmation=1

暗網? 陰謀論?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5RVLpFkAKQ&list=PLGzW5EwcApFuqKoowMHS9v8W34vIPyrtk

鬼故事: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4rmkFI1ik0&list=PLglqLngY6gv5BCwaoP-q6DOwUmw1lIusF

我的100K成長故事: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kdhtp6A6YJE

破解Kate yup事件是假的! 不是綁架! 不要被騙! (Facebook上的證據): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NJVt56ORWo&t=2s

曼德拉效應: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMutzRIE_uE&list=PLglqLngY6gv5BCwaoP-q6DOwUmw1lIusF&index=17&t=5s

深刻個人經歷: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Roa6Vs1qWc&list=PLglqLngY6gv4mm_doLUUJx4zq5KvLJ2VE

用24小時學流利的印度話| 揭露學習15大方法 (用$20請騙子補習老師)

挑戰24小時學流利的印度話 (請了騙子老師!!!)

挑戰24小時學一個新語言 (請了騙子老師!!!)

我挑戰24小時內學會印度話!!! (請了騙子老師)

我24小時內學會印度話!!! (請了騙子老師)

BB仔時發出ee oo聲, 原來是世界各地各種語言.



長大後我們母語才因為環境因素而慢慢會建立.

所以其實小時候的我們已經是精通所有語言的天才bb!


有報導指2024年印度將會成為全球最多人口的國家. 而我住的城市一向都是很多印度人的.

所以我要學印度話, 我覺得對於我4年後的將來也會好有幫助.

今次評價成功的準則就是24小時後, 到我小時候常常去吃飯的印度餐廳用印度話order到一餐. 而要他們以為我真的是印度人.

Day 1

(學習口音)

Ok, 我們的口音學到了一點點. 但學一種新語言, 最重要的根基還是學基本詞匯

Su=shoe

Police=polise

Hindi (印地話) 是印度語言裡面最出名的. 相信也是最簡單. 30分鐘應該就可以. (Show learn Hindi in 30 minutes)

NamasTe=你好

Meraa naam= 我的名字是

hai= 存在

aap se milkar khushi hui= 很高興認識你

DHanyavaaD= 謝謝

bahuT= 很多

svaagat hai= 不用客氣

Phir milenge= 再見

haan= 是

thodi bahut= 一點點

因為印度跟香港一樣曾有一段很長的時間是英國籍民地.


Hindi本身分開兩種說話方式

如果要跟一些印度本地居民用言語溝通, 可以用 ‘Urdu’ 即是比較俚語一點的. 正式一點的埸合就需要用sanskrit, 書面語.

這個知識好重要, 因為之後叫東西吃幾多個份量一定要講清楚.


但我覺得在此學生字這些不能確定自己能100%完成到叫外賣這個任務. 所以我決定網上聘請一個私人美女導師幫一幫手.



我就去睡一睡先.



發現印度語跟中文很相似的地方是喜歡用portmanteau. 即是將兩個字合為一個全新的意思.

像印度話?面 ‘phir milenge’ 是再見的意思. 第一個Phir的意思是 ‘再一次’ 而milenge是 ‘我們會見面.

再一次, 我們會見面.



每一個語言字和意思的結構都是不同

Hindi一個句子的結構是 (subject) (object) (verb) 名詞/形容詞...




I want to make a food order

Main, ek khaana ordar karana chaahata hoon

(I). 1 Food order). (I want to one)



我就想叫這個Tandoori Lamb champ,



Main tandoree memne chaimpiyan ordar karana chaahata hoon



大家可以看到比之前只是要 ‘food order’ 少了 “ek” 作天學到的1數目字. 但句字的前後也是一樣的.



我覺得聆聽比只懂得講話來得更重要.



(需要懂得聽到的印度話)



救命: bachao

一定: nishchit hee

歡迎: Aapaka svaagat hai

嘩: Vaah!


Namaste

Main, ek khaana ordar karana chaahata hoon

Main tandoree memne chaimpiyan ordar karana chaahata hoon

Yah kitane ka hai (how much is it)
Ok! Phir milenge!


（watch Slumdog millionaire)
-貧民窟里的百萬富翁


開始做暗網仔其中一樣最叻的事, 就是看歷史.




早於5萬5千年前人類已經居住印度. Hindi印地話公元7世紀開始出現. 今時今日所講的Hindi來自新德里, 而1948年印度政府獨立後, 1949年9月14號印地話正式成為印度的官方語言, 推翻之前英國政府所定的Urdu語言.



為了讓自己今晩能跟dou si有最好的接觸: 我決定買了Hindi最出名的人生哲學書 ‘the monk who sold his Ferrari’ 講一個訴訟律師25歲方hei職業然後往喜馬拉雅山的洗dik心ling之lui.



(Say some parts of the book)

The constant pressure and exhaughsting schedule of a world class trial lawyer had also broken his most important- and perhaps most human-endowment: his sprit.



(Then use those words in sentence grammars)





Namaste adhyaapak! mai merra naam暗網仔 aap se milkar khushi hui



Hi teacher my name is...nice to meet you)



Namaste mahoday, main ek aadesh banaana chaahata hoon


[How to write hindi 印地語]



我真心覺得學寫印度話識一點簡單的英文比較容易翻譯.

原來印度話的重要發音是 ‘a’ 聲. 差不多所有的字都會有這個發音.



表演時間!!!


印度話另一樣特色就是用一clothesline (晾衣繩) 連起每一個字

其實經歷過這3天我最大的感受是看到以前讀書的自己. 第一天開始總是精力充沛, 但真正學到的東西都是最表面的東西. 也當然喜歡玩.


其實我之前在日本住了幾個月. 之後常常後悔一句日文也沒有學到. 只是用英文跟其他人溝通. 但現在我覺得...不學也ok. 因為我學習能應該只是很一般!

用24小時學流利的印度話 (請了騙子補習老師!!!)