Search
宅在家時髦part 1
與女性主義先鋒Virginia Woolf的對話～
「女人若要寫作，就要有錢有自己的房間（A Woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction.）」
— A Room of One's Own (1929)
知名著作《自己的房間》代表性語錄，雖然時代不同，但意義仍在，分享給妳與身邊的女性～💕
Photographed by @mauhwa_mh
Hair & makeup by @joshua_fotofoto
Talent & Co-styled by @liuyuhy
Thank you @voguetaiwan @sunles @yvonne1one 🖤
Virginia Woolf肖像速寫 by 我婆婆 🤍
#wfh #workfromhome #editorial #fashion #vogue
=================================
「Do」を使った5つの定番フレーズ
=================================
皆さんは英語を話す中で「Do」をどのように使っていますか？おそらく大半の方が「Do you _____」のように疑問文として使っていることでしょう。しかし、この「Do」という単語は実は非常に汎用性が高く、ネイティブの日常会話では疑問文以外にも様々な状況で使われています。今日はその中でもネイティブの定番となっている、「Do」を用いたフレーズ５つをご紹介します。
--------------------------------------------------
1) I'll do the pizza
→「ピザをください」
--------------------------------------------------
レストランやカフェなどでの注文は「〜をください」を「I would like _____.」や「Can I have _____?」と言うのが一般的ですが、それを少々砕いたカジュアルな言い方として「I'll do ______.」も使われます。失礼な響きは全くなく、高級レストランで注文をする時でも使えます。その他、友達に「What are you going to order?（何を注文するの？）」と聞かれた際、「I might just do the fish and chips.（フィッシュ・アンド・チップスにするかも）」という具合にも使えます。
✔SUBWAYのようにパンの種類や中身を自分で選ぶ場合にも「I'll do _____」がよく使われる。例えば「レタス、トマト、玉ねぎとキュウリをください」と注文するなら「I'll do the lettuce, tomato, onion and cucumber.」となる。
✔「I'll do the _____」と「I'll do a/an _____」の両方OK。会話表現なので「a」と「the」の厳密なルールはない。
✔「注文は以上です」は「That'll do」。
＜例文＞
I'll do the cheeseburger special. Can I get that with no onions, please?
（チーズバーガーセットをください。玉ねぎ抜きにしてくれますか？）
I think I'm going to do the tacos. What are you going to get?
（私はタコスにしとこかな。あんたは何にするん？）
I'll do a pint of Guinness. That'll do for now.
（ギネスビールを１杯ください。とりあえず注文は以上で。）
--------------------------------------------------
2) Let's do lunch
→「ランチしよう」
--------------------------------------------------
この表現は友達や同僚を食事に誘う時に「Let's have lunch」と同じ意味として使われます。「Let's do lunch/dinner/coffee」が定番の組み合わせです。「今すぐ」というよりは「またいつか食事をしましょう」というニュアンスで用いられる傾向があり、友達に「いつか食事しようね」と言う場合は「Let's do dinner sometime.」となります。
✔「Let's do _____」の形式に限らず、「We'll do _____」も使われる。
✔「イタリアンでもいいよ」のように、どんな料理が食べたいのかを控えめに提案する場合は「I can do Italian」と表現できる。
＜例文＞
Let's do lunch next week. Are you free on Monday?
（来週ランチしようよ！月曜日は空いている？）
Let me know when you're in town again. We'll do dinner.
（また近くにおる時は連絡してな。飯でも行こや！）
What do you feel like eating for lunch? I can do either Japanese or Korean food.
（お昼は何が食べたい？私は日本食か韓国料理がいいかな。）
--------------------------------------------------
3) Do cleaning
→「掃除をする」
--------------------------------------------------
掃除や片付けの意味として“do”を用いるパターンです。「I did some cleaning today.（今日は掃除をした）」のように掃除全般の意味としても使えますし、「I did the laundry（洗濯をした）」や「I need to do the dishes（皿洗いをしないと）」のように具体的な内容を示すことも出来ます。また、会話をする者同士が掃除のことについて話しているとわかっている場合は、「Make sure you do the bathroom（トイレも掃除をするように）」のような使い方も出来ます。
＜例文＞
I'm doing the yard right now. I've got to finish it before everyone shows up for the BBQ.
（今、庭の掃除をしているよ。みんながバーベキューに来る前に終わらせなきゃ。）
After I finish cleaning this room, I'll do the living room.
（この部屋の掃除が終わったら、次はリビングルームの掃除をします。）
I forgot to do the windows.
（窓を拭くのを忘れていました。）
--------------------------------------------------
4) Do pasta
→「パスタを作る」
--------------------------------------------------
会話では“cook”の代わりに“do”を使って「料理をする」ことを表現することもよくあります。例えば、「今夜はパスタを作ろう」を「We should do pasta tonight.」と言うことが出来ます。しかし、「今、パスタを作っています」のように現在進行形の意味合いとして「I'm doing pasta」と表現することは出来ないので使い方には気をつけましょう。
✔「（今でなく今後）〜を作ります」→「I'm doing _____.」
＜例文＞
I'm doing nabe for dinner tonight.
（今夜は鍋をします。）
Why don't we do okonomiyaki tonight?
（今夜はお好み焼きにせーへん？）
We're doing hot dogs and hamburgers for the BBQ party.
（バーベキュー・パーティーに、ホットドッグとハンバーガーを作ります。）
--------------------------------------------------
5) Do one's hair
→「髪の毛を整える」
--------------------------------------------------
髪の毛をブラシでとかしたりワックスをつけたりするなど、ヘアスタイルを整える意味としても“do”がよく用いられます。例えば、彼女に「Are you ready to go?（行く準備はできた？）」と声をかけ、「Hold on. I need to do my hair.（ちょっと待って。髪をセットしなきゃ」といった具合に使われます。
✔「Do one's nail」→「爪の手入れをする、マニキュアを塗る」
✔「Do one's makeup」→「化粧をする」
＜例文＞
How long does it take to do your hair every morning?
（毎朝、髪の毛をセットするのにどのくらい時間かかるの？）
Do you have nail polish? I need to do my nails.
（マニキュア持ってる？爪のお手入れしないと。）
Did you do your own makeup? You look so pretty.
（そのメイク自分でしたん？めっちゃ可愛いやん！）
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
無料メルマガ『1日1フレーズ！生英語』配信中！
通勤・通学などのちょとした合間を利用して英語が学べるメルマガ『1日1フレーズ！生英語』を平日の毎朝6時に配信中！ただ単にフレーズを紹介しているだけではなく、音声を使った学習プロセスが組み込まれているので、メルマガを読むこと自体が学習方法！
https://hapaeikaiwa.com/mailmagazine/
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
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”
?SHEET MUSIC & Mp3 ▸ http://www.makhonkit.com
?LEARN MY SONGS ▸ https://tinyurl.com/RayMak-flowkey
?Listen on Spotify ▸ https://sptfy.com/raymak
?Listen on Apple Music ▸ https://music.apple.com/sg/artist/ray-mak/1498802526
?Full Song List ▸ http://www.redefiningpiano.com
Talk to me :
? Instagram ▸ http://instagram.com/makhonkit
? Facebook ▸ http://facebook.com/raymakpiano
? Twitter ▸ http://twitter.com/makhonkit
A Million Votes for my Beloved Country, Malaysia.
#ge14
I close my eyes and I can see
The world that's waiting up for me
That I call my own
Through the dark, through the door
Through where no one's been before
But it feels like home
They can say, they can say it all sounds crazy
They can say, they can say I've lost my mind
I don't care, I don't care, so call me crazy
We can live in a world that we design
'Cause every night I lie in bed
The brightest colors fill my head
A million dreams are keeping me awake
I think of what the world could be
A vision of the one I see
A million dreams is all it's gonna take
A million dreams for the world we're gonna make
There's a house we can build
Every room inside is filled
With things from far away
The special things I compile
Each one there to make you smile
On a rainy day
They can say, they can say it all sounds crazy
They can say, they can say we've lost our minds
I don't care, I don't care if they call us crazy
Runaway to a world that we design
Every night I lie in bed
The brightest colors fill my head
A million dreams are keeping me awake
I think of what the world could be
A vision of the one I see
A million dreams is all it's gonna take
A million dreams for the world we're gonna make
However big, however small
Let me be part of it all
Share your dreams with me
You may be right, you may be wrong
But say that you'll bring me along
To the world you see
To the world I close my eyes to see
I close my eyes to see
Every night I lie in bed
The brightest colors fill my head
A million dreams are keeping me awake
A million dreams, a million dreams
I think of what the world could be
A vision of the one I see
A million dreams is all it's gonna take
A million dreams for the world we're gonna make
For the world we're gonna make
Hi everyone, I rearranged the song "A Million Dreams' by Ziv Zaifman, Hugh Jackman & Michelle Williams,
it is one of my favourite songs from the movie "The Greatest Showman".
Hope you all enjoy my piano arrangement and interpretation of the song!
Please LIKE & SHARE if you do! ?
如果你喜歡我的影片，記得分享並訂閱我的頻道。*開啟小鈴鐺* 謝謝你們！
訂閱我的頻道!!! Subscribe to my channel !!!??????
http://tiny.cc/t0kxdz
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/jesswymusic
IG : https://www.instagram.com/jesswymusic
JJ 《交換餘生》: https://youtu.be/fqN27zHRmaQ
自創曲 《巨嬰》： https://youtu.be/a1ZpAUBe9-8
周杰倫 《Mojito》: https://youtu.be/gSHk7Y2cEKM
Love Song- 方大同 : https://youtu.be/dDYgn6BUTXA
與我無關： https://youtu.be/kYEHVo_UhxA
踮起腳尖愛 - 洪佩瑜： https://youtu.be/9eyf3nw78xw
Forever Young- 艾怡良 : https://youtu.be/T6nwsfdQt7U
周杰倫 -說好不哭 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ksHoFCmknk
林宥嘉 - 兜圈 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0tP4XrPJ18
陳綺貞-殘缺的彩虹 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S87YcebHRI
五月天 - 好好 ：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKzbkPdgyng
我還年輕 我還年輕：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8I2yDcWSlM
旋木 X 梦一场 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f13LGH9zv6w
郭頂《水星記》：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtIesu1UqtQ
《 答案 》：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af8ZN9w9MAA
戴佩妮 -你要的愛 ：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0xK8ok6hQw
最長的電影 x 偷故事的人 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyvZx7uhjfQ
莫文蔚 《慢慢喜歡你》: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL2oVwPvbpI
盧廣仲 《幾分之幾》 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5jFUAeAhHo
連名帶姓 X 聽見下雨的聲音: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePy5vVsxsOs
Imagine Dragons - Next To Me : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4I4RP8F4m4
黄明志《唯一的唯一的唯一》：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JHj2j2HQgM
李荣浩《我看著你的時候》：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOWfwAr8Mvo
田馥甄 -愛了很久的朋友: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAE0bQv7s44&t=51s
體面 X 說散就散 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIAjhp-6OrE
Lyrics:
I close my eyes and I can see
The world that's waiting up for me
That I call my own
Through the dark, through the door
Through where no one's been before
But it feels like home
They can say, they can say it all sounds crazy
They can say, they can say I've lost my mind
I don't care, I don't care, so call me crazy
We can live in a world that we design
'Cause every night I lie in bed
The brightest colors fill my head
A million dreams are keeping me awake
I think of what the world could be
A vision of the one I see
A million dreams is all it's gonna take
A million dreams for the world we're gonna make
There's a house we can build
Every room inside is filled
With things from far away
The special things I compile
Each one there to make you smile
On a rainy day
They can say, they can say it all sounds crazy
They can say, they can say we've lost our minds
I don't care, I don't care if they call us crazy
Runaway to a world that we design
Every night I lie in bed
The brightest colors fill my head
A million dreams are keeping me awake
I think of what the world could be
A vision of the one I see
A million dreams is all it's gonna take
A million dreams for the world we're gonna make
#LesMisérables #CastleOnACloud #二胡
悲慘世界音樂劇-雲端城堡 二胡版 by 永安
Les Misérables Musical - Castle on a Cloud (Erhu Cover by YungAn)
http://blog.xuite.net/wangan/njb/250931017
《悲慘世界》（法語：Les Misérables）是由法國音樂劇作曲家克勞德-米歇爾·勳伯格和阿蘭·鮑伯利共同創作的一部音樂劇，改編自維克多·雨果的同名小說。故事以1832年巴黎共和黨人起義為背景，講述了主人公尚萬強在多年前因為了家人沒有食物而去偷麵包遭判重刑，假釋後計劃重新做人、改變社會，但卻遇上種種困難的艱辛歷程。該劇於1980年在法國巴黎的體育宮首次公演，原本預計上演八週，結果延長加演，共演出了16週，因之後的場地時程已被預訂才不得不下檔。
悲慘世界曾被英國BBC電台第二台的聽眾選為「全國第一不可或缺的音樂劇」。2005年10月8日，該劇在倫敦皇后劇場慶祝20週年，而且在上映前便已經預訂演出至2007年1月6日，取代了安德魯·洛伊·韋伯的《貓》，成為倫敦西區上演年期最長的音樂劇。《孤星淚》與《貓》、《歌劇魅影》和《西貢小姐》一同被認為是1980年代以來，歐洲最具影響力的音樂劇之一。
悲慘世界的2012年電影版，當年沒時間去電影院看，覺得很可惜。最近偶然在出租店發現藍光版，就馬上租回來看。重溫了很多耳熟能詳的曲子『Do you hear the people sing』、『I Dreamed A Dream』、『On My Own』等等...，不過我最喜歡的還是『Castle on a Cloud』。在冰天雪地中，小珂賽特唱出美麗而孤獨的旋律，她幻想著有一座城堡，在那裏不用打掃，且有一位身穿白衣的淑女會照顧她。讓我們先來欣賞網路上的影片：
http://youtu.be/bhd8NuvxfKI
這首是C調指法，很適合二胡演奏喔，我們就來玩這首吧！樂曲表現上，右手換弓注意手腕的連貫性，漸慢的樂句要掌握住自己的呼吸，盡量把珂賽特的惆悵表現出來。我的演奏上很多不成熟的地方，還請各位朋友繼續給予指點囉！
讓我們拿起二胡，一起進入小珂賽特的幻想城堡吧！（￣▽￣）
========================
悲慘世界音樂劇-雲端城堡 二胡版
英文：Les Misérables Musical - Castle on a Cloud
作詞：Herbert Kretzmer
作曲：Claude-Michel Schonberg
原曲發行：1980年9月
二胡錄製：2014年11月11日
簡譜：永安
二胡：永安
http://blog.xuite.net/wangan/njb/250931017
1=C
There is a castle on a cloud／在雲之彼端有個城堡
67176 6#56
I like to go there in my sleep／我喜歡在夢境中去那個地方
67176 543
Aren't any floors for me to sweep／那裡沒有需要我掃的地板
23436 716
Not in my castle on a cloud／那永遠不會在我的城堡裡出現的
23432 176
There is a room that's full of toys／那裡有一間擺滿玩具的房間
67176 6#56
There are a hundred boy and girls／還有一百個男孩和女孩
67176 543
Nobody shouts or talks too loud／沒有人會大喊大叫
23436 716
Not in my castle on a cloud／那永遠不會再我的城堡裡出現
23432 176
There is a lady all in white／那裡還有個渾身雪白的小姐
43212 3431
Holds me and sings a lullaby／抱著我唱著搖籃曲
6543 4565
She's nice to see and she's soft to touch／她看起來是那麼的美麗 皮膚摸起來是那麼的柔軟
6b765 45641
She says "Cosette, I love you very much."／她說『珂賽特，我是多麼的愛你。』
23 43 434343
I know a place where no one's lost／我知道有個地方沒人會迷路
67176 6#56
I know a place where no one cries／我知道有個地方沒人會哭泣
67176 543
Crying at all is not allowed／因為哭是被禁止的
23436 716
Not in my castle on a cloud／那永遠也不會在我的城堡裡出現
23432 176
END
a room of one's own 在 An Introduction to Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own 的必吃
video for a great introduction to Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own, one of the most important books ever written on the nature of ... ... <看更多>