關於 you are what you eat meaning ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Eat what nourishes your body, do what nourishes your soul, think what nourished your mind, hope you have a great weekend ahead! 🤩🤩
.
Recently I’ve been nourishing my body with 湯緣苑 Sophisticated Queen Series 7 Types of Soup Packs for 7 days (1 day 1 pack). It’s so easy to prepare, just soak it in boiling water for 10mins and it’s ready to be served. ✨✨
.
All the soup taste so good, the flavour is mild, and soothing from natural ingredients and herbs. It is recommended to consume 1 set which consists of 7 packs each month after period or menses ended. ✨✨
.
After completing this set, I felt that my body is more energetic, better focus when I work, less backache and headache. My emotion more stable meaning I don’t get mood swing or cranky easily. 😍😍
.
Here are the 7 Ready-to-Drink soup packs:
Day 1: Coconut Codonopsis Soup
To promote alertness, energy, and tonic for our kidney.
.
Day 2: Herbal Ba Zhen Nourishing Soup
To replenish qí and nourish blood, reduce menstrual pain, reduce cold hands and feet, and general wellness.
.
Day 3: Sea Coconut Apple Soup
To nourish lung, rejuvenate skin and beauty, relieving cough and reduce phlegm.
.
Day 4: Ginseng Beard Herbal Soup
To nourish and rejuvenate body，replenish qí, and moisturise internal dryness, and anti-aging.
.
Day 5: Beetroot Corn and Cashew Nut Soup
Helps to detox and boost up immune system protect liver and lower lipid.
.
Day 6: Triple Treasure Herbs Soup
To invigorate qí and blood circulation，beauty, regulating stomach, and intestines health.
.
Day 7: Chinese Artichoke with Pear Soup
To replenish qí and nourish yin, improve mood swing, dry-mouth, and nourishing tonic for the kidney.
.
You can find ready-to-drink many types of herbal and nourishing soup packs that made with 100% natural ingredients. These are perfect for those who is busy and don’t have the luxury of time to gather the ingredients, herbs, and boiled then for hours.
.
All their soups are hygienically packed and sealed. Prices are reasonable on average of RM12 to RM15 per pack. More information and order at https://tangyuanyuan.kyte.site/
.
#TangYuanYuan #TangooTangYuanYuan

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”

Signet Ring of Authority

“Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Because God has shown you all of this, there is no one so discreet and wise as you. You shall be over my house, and according to your word will all my people be ruled. Only in the throne I will be greater than you.” Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Behold, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” Pharaoh took off his signet ring from his hand, and put it on Joseph’s hand, and arrayed him in robes of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck, and he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had. They cried before him, “Bow the knee!” He set him over all the land of Egypt. Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, and without you shall no man lift up his hand or his foot in all the land of Egypt.”” (Genesis‬ ‭41:39-44‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Before Pharaoh put on the signet ring on Joseph’s hand, he spoke, giving Joseph authority over the nation of Egypt. The ring therefore represents the authority of the King. Whoever wears the ring has been authorized to act on the King’s behalf, and the Kingdom’s resources are at this person’s disposal.

In the story of Joseph, Joseph is a picture of Jesus, who was accused of committing a crime that He did not commit, and then subsequently raised to the right hand of God, having all authority and power, as well as the name above every other name.

Jesus endured the greatest humiliation in order to purchase the greatest salvation for mankind. That is why Abba God gave Jesus the “signet ring”—all authority, glory, honor, and power.

We don’t really find any significant thing about rings until Jesus mentions it in His parable of the prodigal son. I believe He was drawing a reference to the story of Joseph because the “best robe” also parallels with the “robes of fine linen” that Pharaoh gave to Joseph.

““But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe, and put it on him. Put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. Bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat, and celebrate; for this, my son, was dead, and is alive again. He was lost, and is found.’ They began to celebrate.” (Luke‬ ‭15:22-24‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

In the parable, we find that the ring is given to the prodigal son who is a picture of us who are saved by Grace through faith. We did not do anything to deserve forgiveness, but God forgave and restored us to sonship because of His love and Grace.

So Jesus was the original recipient of the ring, and then Jesus said that Abba God gave the ring to us.

In the context of the parable, a family ring like that would have an insignia of the rich family, and when buying things, the prodigal son could just show the signet, meaning to say, “Charge the bill to my father’s tab.”

The ring being given to us tells us that we have received authority from God to act in His name, and to receive good things because of being in His family. We enjoy all these benefits at God’s expense, and He is most willing to provide what we need.

“The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and you in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that you sent me, and loved them, even as you loved me.” (John‬ ‭17:22-23‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Before Jesus was arrested and eventually crucified, He prayed to the Father that the glory which belonged to Him (Jesus) should be given to us as well. This is like giving the signet ring which was His, to us.

See yourself as one with God, and make no distinction between what is His and what is yours. We have been joined to Christ through the new birth and the New Covenant of Grace.

““He said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.” (Luke‬ ‭15:31‬ ‭WEB‬)

Do you believe this, that everything that belongs to God also belongs to you? You are so wealthy because God gave you every spiritual blessing so that you lack nothing.

Whenever you feel like you have nothing, use the signet ring as a visual aid. Imagine Abba God placing it on your finger and reminding you that all authority that belongs to Jesus has also been given to you. In Christ, you have everything that you need!

The four gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John contain many powerful truths that will help you in life. Understand them through the lens of Grace: https://bit.ly/understandeveryparable

【曲名 : 浮気は犯罪行為】
↓音楽アプリで鬼リピしてね♡↓
ダウンロード : https://linkco.re/EMA89gRz

Music/Lyrics/Mix/Mastered : たかやん (Takayan)
Twitter : https://twitter.com/takayan_gorizal
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/takayan_gorizal
Soundcloud : https://soundcloud.com/takayan_gorizal

Animation : ラビットマシーン (Rabbit MACHINE)
Twitter : https://twitter.com/Rabbit_MACHINE

Track : Reno
inst : https://youtu.be/YrW7VebOpmU

【Lyrics】
浮気がバレて「死にたい」？
こっちの方が100倍「死にたい」
嘘だらけのダサい 弁解
ダルい 数ヶ月のFake Love
さぞかし良い気分だったよね？
数人の相手を弄んで
やり返しても意味が無いの
痛みか苦しみ 受けろ 後遺症

原因とか事前に言ってくれれば 直すのに
顔とか言うなら付き合った意味が分からない
セフレ作れよ最初から 愛の無い半端な性行為
馬鹿じゃない？端から顔で選んでんなら
「内面が大事」とか言ってたじゃねえか
季節移り変わり キスの相手も移り変わり
付ける薬なんて無い 死ななければ治りはしない
理想の相手のストックあるのは凄いけど
とっかえひっかえよりか一途がかっこいいよ
そもそも素敵な恋愛って何？
「飽き」と「嫉妬しちゃうような感情」って何？
この先 生きていくメリットって何？
今後、子供を生んでく意味って何？
あ！気付いたらめちゃくちゃ病んでる
お前の所為 飲みまくる酒
全部悟って ふわふわ OD
命と引き換して更生しろ

くりくりまず剥ぎ取る
たまたまおちんちんびろーん
明日も生きよう！ あなたの為に生きよう！
ぱくぱくぴんくのうみそ レバー美味しいよーん！

大好きなのは変わらない けど怒りだけが 今 収まらない
感情任せでごめんなさい 今から教える「本当の愛」

浮気がバレて「死にたい」？
こっちの方が100倍「死にたい」
嘘だらけのダサい 弁解
ダルい 数ヶ月のFake Love
さぞかし良い気分だったよね？
数人の相手を弄んで
やり返しても意味が無いの
痛みか苦しみ 受けろ 後遺症

【English Lyrics】
Cheated and got caught, saying "I want to die" ?
I want to die 10000% more than you.
Your excuses are full of lies.
F*ck, several months of fake love.
Your must felt great after what you did.
Flirting several girls at the same time.
It's meaningless to start over.
Feel pain and suffer, sequelae.

I would have changed if you told me your complains.
I don't even know why are we dating if you care for appearance that much.
You should have make some sex friends, and make love which don't involves love.
Are you dumb? If you choose from appearance,
why would you say "Inner beauty is important" to me?
Season changes, the people you kiss also changes.
There's no medicine to fix you, you will never change unless you die.
Amazing for you to stock up your 'ideal lover',
Love someone wholeheartedly is way better than changing partner again and again.
First of all, what exactly is 'perfect relationship'?
What is 'fed up' and 'jealous'?
What is the merit for me to live to the future?
What is the meaning for me to give birth to a baby after all these things happened?
Ahh, I've already gone mad when I notice what's going on.
Turns out to be an alcoholic because of what you've done.
Whatever, feeling great, overdose.
Give up your life for your redemption.

Peel off you skins.
Take off your balls and pen*s.
Tomorrow will be a great day, I will live it for you.!
Eat your pinky brain, and your liver tastes so delicious!

I love you so much and it never changed, but now, I really can't stop my anger.
Sorry to be extremely emotional, from now on, I will show you what is 'real love'.

Cheated and got caught, saying "I want to die" ?
I want to die 10000% more than you.
Your excuses are full of lies.
F*ck, several months of fake love.
Your must felt great after what you did.
Flirting several girls at the same time.
It's meaningless to start over.
Feel pain and suffer, sequelae.

台灣安全T恤（Taiwan safe zone t-shirt）► https://shopee.tw/jesustaiwan/7220592129
🦐 蝦皮 ► https://shopee.tw/jesustaiwan
🔵 FB ► https://pse.is/BAPYU
🔸 IG ► https://pse.is/MBW4V
💬 要不要幫我打字幕 ? 謝啦！


【笑一下吧 Check more videos】
🎥[阿兜仔]► https://pse.is/BHEPW
🎥[COW杯]► https://pse.is/BV6V8
🎥[黑VLOG]► https://pse.is/BWFNG

腳本：
上個月我拍一集說 Last month I film this video 我錯了！ I was wrong! 恐慌不好,沒有錯 Panic is not good, true 但是 but 防疫不夠更糟糕！ Not enough prevention is worst! 糟糕到引發 Worst till the point to lead us to 西班牙末日！ The end of Spain! 世界末日 The end of the world 你準備好嗎 Are you ready? 還好，我已經有口罩 Okay, I already have masks 感謝我的朋友 Thanks to my friends 因為你們本來把口罩搶走 Because you took all masks away 搶光光 All of them  COW杯 cow-bei 看來 It seems 疫情很嚴重 The epidemic is serious 靠腰，陰屍路到了 It's "the walking dead " 在這部影片 In this video  我沒有辦法說這句話 I can not say this 因為YouTube 不會讓我賺錢喔 Because YouTube won't make me money 謝謝YouTube  Thanks to YouTube  COW杯 Cowbei 這次我要拍 This video  像一些人的 Like some guy's 比較短的影片 It's short 重點是 The point is 西班牙 Spain 我以前的國家 My previous country 輸給臺灣 Lose to taiwan 西班牙輸了 Spain lost 臺灣 Taiwan 幹得好 Well done  對，沒錯 Yes yes 親愛的朋友 My dear friends  西班牙很糟糕 Spain is bad 臺灣做得非常好 Taiwan is doing very well 我口乾有一點渴 My mouth is a little thirsty 爽 Cool 這個故事告訴我們什麼？ What did this story say? 在這樣 In  世界末日 The end of the world  的情況下 In this situation 恐慌 Panic 有幫助 Works 不要誤會啦 Don't get me wrong 我覺得恐慌是不好的 I think panic is bad 但是在這種情況下 But in this situation  如果你要選 If you need to choose 過度 Over  或是不足 Or insufficient 過度比較好 Over is better 什麼意思？ What dose that mean? 臺灣從一開始 Taiwan from the beginning 好熱 So hot 臺灣人就恐慌了 Taiwanese panic 搶口罩 Grab mask 引發我買不到 So me can't buy any 咳咳 (Coughing) 不是不是 No, no 是我暗示你們很cow杯 I hint you guys are very cow-bei 從一開始 At the first time  臺灣人一直在噴酒精 Taiwanese have been spraying alcohol 但是西班牙人 But the spanish 已經有很多人得病 Already many people got sick 還會去參加很多人的活動 And go to lot of people's events 引發連政治人物 Even politicians 都生病了 Are sick  都得了 They got it 不過西班牙人跟臺灣人 But the Spaniards and Taiwanese 有兩件事做得一模一樣 Two things are done exactly the same 一，政治人物用這個 First, politicians use this 來攻擊彼此 To attack each other 來互罵 Come scolding each other 都是蔡英文的假新聞 It's all fake news from Cai Yingwen 這個是國民黨扯後腿 This is the KMT pulling hind legs 對，西班牙更嚴重 Yes, Spain is worse  真的很cow杯 It's really bad 第二件事 Second 是在這個情況之下 Is in this situation 大家 People  愛 Love 搶衛生紙 Grabbing toilet paper 在臺灣 in Taiwan 民眾狂搶衛生紙 People fight for toilet paper 因為謠言指出 Because rumors point out 衛生紙與醫療口罩原料相同 Toilet paper is the same as medical mask 可能會影響衛生紙產量與價格 May affect tissue production and prices 歐伊系 Yummy 這個算是美食節目嗎？ Is this a food show? 趕快按讚啦 Hurry up and like 百萬YouTuber YouTuber with more than one Million subs 為什麼 why 大家 everyone 愛搶衛生紙？ Love fight for toilet paper? 有人可以幫我解釋嗎？ Can someone explain it for me? 沒有你、沒有你、沒有你 Without you, without you, without you 不能沒有你 Can't live without you 寶貝、寶貝！ Baby Baby! 這樣 is because 比較安全嗎？ Is it safer? 要不要這樣出門？ Should I to go out like this? 也不錯 Not bad 我要告訴你們一個秘密 I want to tell you a secret 今年的新希望 My new goal for this year was 是申請臺灣國籍 Apply for Taiwan nacionality 本來想要回去西班牙辦這件事 I wanted to go back to Spain to do this 現在我不知道什麼時候可以回去 Now i don't know when i can go back 但是有一件事 But one thing 很清楚 is very clear 無論如何 no matter how 我一定 I must 要變成臺灣人 To become Taiwanese 小英，妳聽到嗎？ Little Tsai, do you hear me? 拜託妳 Please 沒問題 no problem 哦給 OK 謝啦 Thanks 因為臺灣表現得很好 Because Taiwan is doing very well 我已經在做這件T恤 I am already making this t-shirt 你們可以告訴大家 You can tell everyone 臺灣安全 Taiwan is safe 你們不是從武漢來的 You are not from Wuhan 為臺灣驕傲 Proud of taiwan 這個就是 This is 靠，我愛台灣 的意思 The meaning of Damn I Love Taiwan 現在懂嗎？ Do you understand now? 不過，要繼續加油 But needs keep fighting 西班牙更加油 Spain need it even more 親愛的家人 Dear family 親愛的朋友 Dear friends 拜託 Please 保持安全 stay safe 不要出門 Don't go out 常常洗手 Wash hands often 吃健康 Eat healthy 多休息 Rest more 常常運動 Exercise often 這個是COW杯 This is Cowbei 我是黑素斯 I´m Jesus 掰 Bye 欸？靠T恤我忘記匯款 Eh? I forgot to do transfer for T-shirt 等我一下 wait for me 掰 bye 我一定 I must 要變成臺灣人 To become Taiwanese 黑素斯沒問題 Jesus, no problem

JAPANESE SUSHI 101 簡単なお寿司講座
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P0jIm43-Cw
0:10 から 2:05 まで

【スクリプト（間違っていたら教えてください）】
Japanese people are usually very surprised and pleased to learn that foreigners actually can eat sushi.
It seems that in Japan most people still don't know how wildly insanely popular sushi is overseas. However, in the Western world there's still a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about what sushi actually is.
For example, I'm sure that many of you have had this conversation before.

Hey, do you wanna go have some sushi?
Sushi? What's that?
Umm. You know, it's like raw fish?

This is actually not true. It's a common misconception that sushi equals raw fish. But actually sushi refers to the way that the rice is prepared. The rice is vinegared and that's what makes it such a perfect match with raw fish. Don't be mistaken. Not all sushi is raw fish and not all raw fish is sushi.
So today I bought all kinds of Japanese sushi and even some things that are not sushi, and I'd like to explain the difference to you today.
First, usually in Japan when we talk about eating sushi or getting sushi, we don't mean the rolls. It's actually much more common to eat nigiri sushi which is the vinegared rice on the bottom and the "neta" the fish on the top.
We've got shrimp. We've got egg. We've got anago. We've got salmon. We've got everything.
That isn't to say that rolls don't exist at all in Japan, but there definitely isn't quite the variety that you will find overseas.
This is called a salad roll. It has egg, imitation crab, some tuna and a cucumber. It's no Philadelphia or caterpillar roll, but in terms of complicated rolled sushi, this is about as good as it's gonna get.
My favorite type of Japanese rolled sushi is Tekka Maki which is just tuna. I love how this side is super clean and then on this side you can see all the fish coming out.
However, this is sashimi. Sashimi is not sushi. Sashimi is usually raw slices of fish placed on top of daikon, meaning there's no rice involved and therefore it is not sushi.

僕の進展状況はインスタグラムでアップしていきます。↓
https://www.instagram.com/sawaken0708/

YouTubeライブの配信時間はLINEでお知らせしています。↓
https://line.me/R/ti/p/%40wem5691r

【さわけん】
英会話講師 / TOEIC S&W 講師 / ビデオブロガー
名古屋市なう
ロサンゼルス13年在住 / ラスベガス2年在住
ユニオンバンク（米国）に勤務経験
アメリカ人との結婚 / 離婚を経験する (T_T)
TOEICスコアは「L&R」「S&W」 ともに9割以上
英語発音テスト(EPT) 9割以上

【メディア実績】
中京テレビ PS三世 出演
名古屋テレビ UP! 出演
NHK 所さん！大変ですよ 取材協力

【参考動画】
- 自分自身を通訳できれば英会話はけっこう簡単なのでコツを教えます
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wpca2dcsSs

- 英作文を2万回やったら通訳中級の仕事ができるようになった話
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqEbJ-HTh8c

- 英語をゼロからやり直す社会人の勉強法と練習法（独学）
https://youtu.be/AHx-3MXLJw0