關於 beyond my expectation ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

รัตน จันทร์ประสิทธิ์ (นะ) นักร้องนำของ Polycat ศิลปินดังที่มีผลงานเพลงซินธ์ป็อปติดหูคนไทยมาแล้วมากมาย ชนะเลิศ FACA Anthem Contest ด้วยการทำเพลงจากเครื่อง Game Boy ส่งเข้าประกวด
.
สำหรับงานนี้ จัดขึ้นเพื่อหาเพลงมาเป็นธีมสำหรับ FACA (Fine-Ass CryptoApes) ซึ่งเป็นโปรเจกต์ NFT ของเหล่าลิง pixel-Ape จำนวน 11,111 ตัว และทางด้านของคุณนะ ที่ใช้ชื่อเข้าแข่งขันว่า "Serra Avatar" ก็ชนะเลิศการแข่งขันไปได้ในที่สุด โดยกล่าวมาผ่านทวิตเตอร์ส่วนตัวว่า

“Yayyy This beyond my expectation! It such an honor to be a part of @FacaFactory . Hope u guys enjoy this anthem"

"ทุกคนครับบบ เพลงที่ผมส่งเข้าประกวดได้รับเลือกเป็นเพลงthemeด้วย (เป็นโปรเจคnftลิง8bitที่ผมเห็นว่าน่ารักมากๆ) ไว้จะมาอธิบายให้ฟังนะครับ ขอไปดีใจก่อนนน”
.
ฟังเพลงดังกล่าว :
https://twitter.com/FacaFactory/status/1433805568251031558
.
สำหรับดนตรีที่คุณนะส่งเข้าประกวด ถูกทำขึ้นจาก Game Boy 100% ไม่มีเครื่องดนตรีอื่นมาเกี่ยวข้อง หรือมีกระบวนการปรับแต่งต่อจากนั้นเพิ่มเติมอีก และนอกจากเพลงของเจ้าตัวจะได้รับเลือกแล้ว เจ้าลิง Serra Avatar ก็จะกลายมาเป็นหนึ่งใน pixel-Ape ของโปรเจกต์ด้วยเช่นเดียวกัน
.
ที่มา : https://twitter.com/radiosolace/status/1433830514666790912
https://twitter.com/napolycat/status/1433718134288969734
https://twitter.com/napolycat/status/1433810904282402821
.
#GamingDose #ข่าวเกม #GameBoy

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”

編輯：收到之鋒單獨隔離囚禁期間寫下的來信。他現已結束隔離囚禁，狀態尚好。之鋒在鐵窗之內最為掛心12港人已經送中超過100天，並希望香港人繼續聲援所有失去自由的手足。

《監獄中的監獄》(Please scroll for English version)

在11月23日不幸遭法官在未作判刑前，便宣布即時還柙後，我本來已有意在patreon發表獄中書簡，跟關心我的朋友述說再度入獄的想法。結果卻因當晚突然被單獨囚禁的狀況而大失預算。即便已有三次坐監的經驗，但被送到「監獄中的監獄」囚禁，實在是始料不及。我花了不少時間與精神，方能驅使自己平伏下來整理思緒，過程實在不是容易。

還柙首天，我被送到去年六月才步出的荔枝角收押所，然後進行不陌生的入冊程序 —— 見長官、換囚衣和領取個人用品等。本來我已對這些程序諷刺地感到熟悉，但到了下午四時左右，當我跟林朗彥相繼完成初到荔枝角收柙所的各項程序並呆坐於指模房一角等侯指示時，保安組職員突然將我帶往收押所醫院。我本來以為在獄中見醫生是基於程序需要，結果卻被帶到收押所醫院走廊盡頭的單人囚室，那刻我才深知不妙，也成了惡夢真正的開端。

到達單人囚室後，懲教人員表示我需要等待長官前來講解狀況，並拋下一句「你之後應該都喺到」便離開。等待過程中我感到非常不安，不斷猜想懲教會搬出甚麼原因來把我隔離囚禁於單人囚室。結果千算萬算也算不到，懲教表示我的X光片有不妥——懷疑我肚內藏有異物，諸如毒品、戒指或金銀器等，故此我需要接受為期數天的隔離囚禁。

之前三次入獄也有照過X-ray，自問從來跟毒品二字完全沾不上邊，而還柙前的三餐也是正常食物，對於這個奇怪結果完全摸不着頭腦。另外，因為懲教院方並不允許在囚人士檢查X光片，即沒有途徑和渠道查證，所以對於這個檢查結果更是無從稽考。

因被懷疑體內藏有毒品而在醫院隔離囚禁，囚禁的待遇比起「水飯房」還要不堪。一般而言，還柙侯判的在囚人士於日間均會在有三至四十人的活動室打發時間，而晚上則回到五人囚室休息。惟我被隔離囚禁期間，除了探訪和洗澡以外，基本上是半步都不能踏出這個七十多呎的囚室，不能「放風」亦連一小時户外活動的時間也不被允許。由於整項隔離措施是應對在囚人士體內藏有毒品為前提，所以懲教職員每隔四小時便會來量我的血壓及檢查血含氧量。除了凌晨一時及四時也需起床作檢查外，囚室也是二十四小時開着燈的，所以我需要把CSI口罩當眼罩使用，才能勉強入睡。

最難捱的是，由於整個隔離囚禁的原意是希望體內藏有毒品人士將毒品排出體外，所以我並不能使用囚室的馬桶，而水龍頭也不會有水，以杜絕在囚人士將毒品沖走的可能。取而代之的，就是院所提供的塑膠便盤。但因為便盤的更換次數不足，我只能在洗手盆如廁小解。在囚人士排泄於便盤後，需知會懲教署保安組前來囚室，仔細檢查排泄物有否藏有藥丸或毒品之類的異物。當檢查程序完畢後，職員便會要求在囚人士在一張「單獨觀察」的紙張上簽名作實。我仍然歷歷在目每次簽署時看到紙張清楚列明「懷疑在囚人士體內藏有毒品」一欄，感覺實在很不好受。

據聞隔離囚禁一般為期三至五日，而今天已是正式被單獨囚禁的第二天。但願此信寄出及發佈的時候，我已結束隔離。在還未能適應及消化自己已身處監獄裏的事實，就被送往單獨囚禁，斷絕了一切活動及溝通，的確不好捱，情緒亦難免受到牽動。故此，抱歉我暫未能在大政治和社會環境的層面提供什麼分析，但我知道還有很多手足正在面臨官司，或和我一樣身陷囹圄，還望大家繼續有幾多做幾多，讓他們知道自己不是孤身一人。下周一（30日）是12港人被捕送中100天的日子，亦懇請大家繼續關注。

最後想說，面對未知的官司刑期及種種不確定性，必須坦誠地說會有不安及焦慮，但正如我再步入犯人欄時說到「大家頂住，我知道外面嘅人更加辛苦，繼續努力。」，我也會學習把獄中遭遇的苦難轉化為驅使自己成長的果實。我知道絕不容易，但我會努力頂住，共勉之。

之鋒
25/11/2020

The prison inside prison

After my immediate remand on November 23, I had intended to send letters from the prison to update you my latest situation in jail after my remand on November 23. But owing to the sudden solitary confinement that night, it turned out that I was unable to do so. Although I have been in prison three times, being held in the prison isolation unit is far beyond my expectation. It took me a lot of time and energy to calm myself down and reorganise my thoughts.

On the first day of remand in Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre, I went through the registration procedures—meeting with officers, changing into prison clothes and obtaining daily necessities. The procedures are very familiar as I was released from here in June. At about 4 pm, Ivan Lam and I completed all procedures and waiting for further instructions in the fingerprinting room, officers from the security team suddenly took me to the hospital in the Centre. While I thought it was a normal procedure to see doctor, I was taken to a single cell at the end of the hospital corridor. At that moment, I knew it was the beginning of the nightmare.

After arriving the single cell, the correctional officer told me that I needed to wait for a senior officer to explain the situation and said, "You should be here for a while." During waiting for the senior officer, I felt very disturbed and kept wondering why they moved me to solitary confinement. In the end, the senior provided a highly unexpected reason—there were "foreign objects" in my stomach, the officer said, they could be drugs, rings or gold and silver objects. Therefore, I needed to be in solitary confinement for several days until they found out what the "foreign objects" were.

I have taken X-rays for a few times, but nothing happened before, I was completely confused about the X-rays result. I have never had anything to do with drugs, and all food I had before remand were normal food. Moreover, under the current policy, the prison administration does not allow inmates to see their X-rays, so there is no way to verify the results.

As the officers suspected I possess drugs in my body, the treatment was even worse than normal solitary confinement. Generally speaking, persons in remand can spend their time in the activity room with three to forty other inmates in the daytime and return to their five-personal cell at night. However, what happened to me was, apart from visiting by my friends and relatives and taking a shower, I basically could not leave the single cell. I was even not allowed to have one hour of outdoor activity. Since the isolation was based on the presumption of possession of drugs, correctional officers would check my blood pressure and oxygen saturation every four hours even at midnight. The light in the cell was also kept turning on 24 hours a day, so I needed to use my face mask as the blindfold to barely put myself to sleep.

The most difficult thing was that since the original intent of the entire confinement was to let persons excrete drugs from their body, so I could not use the toilet in the cell, and the tap did not have water to prevent people from flushing drugs away. Instead, officers would provide a plastic plate. But because of the lack of replacement of the toilet plate, I could only use the washbasin to urinate. After the I excreted in the plate, I needed to inform the officer to come to the cell and check the excrement for any foreign objects such as pills or drugs. When the process was completed, the officers would ask me to sign an "isolated observation" form. I still remembered the uncomfortable feeling when I saw the form clearly stated "suspected possession of drugs in the inmate's body" every time I signed the paper.

To my understanding, such solitary confinement generally lasts three to five days, and today is the second day of formal solitary confinement. I hope that when this letter is sent and published, the isolation is ended. Before I could adapt the fact that I was already in prison, I was sent to solitary confinement and all activities and communication were cut off. It was indeed difficult to endure, and I am sorry that I have not yet provided any analysis of the politics and social environment. But I know that there are still many other Hong Kong protesters who are facing lawsuits or are in jail like me. I hope you can continue to do as much as you can to let them know they are not alone. Monday (November 30) is the day when 12 Hongkongers were arrested and sent to Mainland China for 100 days, I urge everyone to continue to pay attention to them.

Finally, I want to be frank that, in the face of uncertainties, I just feel uneasy and anxious. However, as I said when I stepped into the dock in the courtroom, "Hang in everyone, I know the situation that the people outside face will be more difficult. Keep fighting." I will also learn to turn the pains and sufferings I encountered in prison into the power that drives my growth. I know it will never be easy, but I will try my best.

Joshua

25/11/2020

《ジョゼと虎と魚たち》
蒼のワルツ / Ao no Waltz / 蔚藍的華爾滋 / Waltz of the Blue　
作詞 / Lyricist：Eve
作曲 / Composer：Eve
編曲 / Arranger：Numa
歌 / Singer：Eve
翻譯：澄野（CH Music Channel）
意譯：CH（CH Music Channel）
English Translation: CH（CH Music Channel）

背景 / Background :
https://i.imgur.com/TgQMRC1.png

版權聲明:
本頻道不握有任何音樂所有權，亦無任何營利，一切僅為推廣用途。音樂所有權歸原始創作者所有。請支持正版。

Copyright Info:
Be aware this channel is for promotion purposes only without any illegal profit. All music's ownership belongs to the original creators.
Please support the original creator.

すべての権利は正当な所有者/作成者に帰属します。あなたがこの音楽（または画像）の作成者で、この動画に使用されたくない場合はメッセージまたはこのYoutubeチャンネルの概要のメールアドレスにご連絡ください。私はすぐに削除します。

如果你喜歡我的影片，不妨按下喜歡和訂閱，你的支持就是我創作的最大原動力！
If you like my videos, please click like and subscribe! Thx :)

粉絲團隨時獲得最新訊息！
Check my Facebook page for more information!
https://www.facebook.com/chschannel/

中文翻譯 / Chinese Translation :
https://home.gamer.com.tw/creationDetail.php?sn=5053985

英文翻譯 / English Translation :


日文歌詞 / Japanese Lyrics :
懐かしさに溺れた　まだ青かった僕ら
雲が残る合間　ただ太陽を見ていた
おざなりな僕ら　溢れだした声が
ただ大切な事は　伝わらないようにできてた

かたちのない色味を　抱きしめてみたの
期待と不安の日々を　後悔の味で知った
知らない世界へ　手を伸ばしたくて
強がりのウソなど　ポケットにしまった

優しさを包む痛みも全部
覚えていたくて

ただ願って願って　生まれ変わっても
不確かな未来を謳っては触れたくて
伝って伝って　頬を流れる
その涙の味は　いつかの約束
ただ灰になって　朧げになって
遠く何処かへ　この夜を越えて蒼に染まる

夜もすがら夢を　張り巡らした想いを
見つからないまま　月は影を落とした
寝もやらず明けて　手も離せなくて
憧れる君を　遠ざけてしまった

あの日の僕の眼差しも全部
霞んでしまって

ただ痛くて痛くて　堪らない
空の青さは深く色を孕んでは冷たくて
伝って伝って　寄せ合う肩を
震わせた　微かな温もりを抱いては
まだ見ぬ世界へ　花は風を待って
遠く何処かへ　この夜を越えて蒼に染まる

犯してきた過ちも　その後悔さえも
かけがえのないものだから

ただ願って願って　生まれ変わっても
不確かな未来を謳っては触れたくて
伝って伝って　頬を流れる
その涙の味は　いつかの約束
ただ灰になって　朧げになって
遠く何処かへ　この夜を越えて蒼に染まる

中文歌詞 / Chinese Lyrics :
依舊青澀的我們沉溺於懷舊過去
僅是望著雲雲間隙中探頭的太陽
從敷衍的我們口中流露出的聲音
刻意不透露一絲珍貴重要的事情

我曾試圖伸手擁抱那不具形體的滋味
期待與不安的時光，帶著後悔的苦味度過
我希望能將手伸向未知的世界
而把倔強的謊言收進口袋裡

將溫柔包裹起的苦痛也想全部——
毫不畏懼地體驗看看

僅是祈求著、渴望著，若能有來生
仍想高頌並觸及那不可預測的未來
緩緩地、緩緩地，自臉龐滑下的淚水
那淚水的味道是某日一同許下的約定
哪怕僅化作一片朦朧、化作點點塵埃
仍邁向遙遠的某處，飛越這片黑夜、渲染上蔚藍的色彩

那夜深人靜的夢，與那心頭滿溢的思念
始終無法尋回，僅是與月光映照的身影相伴
徹夜未眠至天明，依然畏懼鬆開緊繫的雙手
卻不知不覺與憧憬的你，漸行漸遠

那一天我看見的一切也全都——
因淚水變得模糊不清

僅是隱隱作痛、好難受，令人難以承受
天空的蒼藍孕育出的顏色太過冰冷刺痛
緩緩地、緩緩地，兩人互相倚靠的雙肩
你總輕輕顫抖，只要我抱起你、傳遞那微微的溫暖
繁花等著風兒吹起，向著從未見過的嶄新世界
邁向那遙遠的某處，飛越這片黑夜、渲染上蔚藍的色彩

不論是曾犯下的過錯，抑或惦記的點點懊悔
「全都是無可取代的珍貴回憶啊。」所以啊——

僅是祈求著、渴望著，若能夠再有來生
仍想高頌並觸及我們那不可預測的未來
緩緩地、緩緩地，自你臉龐滑下的淚水
那淚水的鹹味是彼此曾一同許下的約定
哪怕所有的回憶早已化作一片朦朧塵埃
仍向著遙遠的某處，飛越這片黑夜、渲染上海洋般蔚藍的色彩

英文歌詞 / English Lyrics :
Drowning in nostalgia, we were still young
I was just looking at the sun while the clouds remained
We were so standoffish, with the overflowing voice
I couldn't express the things that are so important to us

I tried to embrace the shapeless color
I learned about the days of expectation and anxiety with the taste of regret
I want to reach out to a world I don't know
But I put my pretended strength back in my pocket

I want to remember all the pain that surrounds my kindness

Simply pray and pray, even if I am reborn
I don't want to forget that uncertain future
Tears that intertwined and trail down the cheek
are the taste same as the promise from that day
Even if they become ashes and everything becomes vague
Somewhere far away beyond this night, it is dyed in blue

I've been dreaming all night long with these overflowed feelings
The moon cast a shadow without being found
I couldn't sleep and couldn't let go of our hands
You're the one I yearn for, yet somehow I've kept you away

All the things my eyes saw on that day have also become hazy

It just hurts and hurts and I can't stand it
The blueness of the sky is deep and cold.
Our shoulders slowly close together
You shivered, I pass on my slight warmth
To the world we haven't seen yet, with flowers dancing in the wind
Somewhere far away beyond this night, it is dyed in blue

The mistakes I made and even the regrets are irreplaceable, so I...

Just hope and hope even if you are reborn
I want to touch and sing along with the uncertain future
The taste of tears that fall and fall down my cheeks
are the taste same as the promise from that day
Even if they become ashes and everything becomes vague
Somewhere far away beyond this night, it is dyed in blue

#喬瑟與虎與魚群
#ジョゼと虎と魚たち
#JoseetheTigerandtheFish

CHOSEN.【Official Music Video】
此曲收錄於 Cytus II
========================================
沉寂了一段時間

未來不是停擺而是繼續向前

我們都背負著各自的理想與期望，在屬於自己的路上堅持

並前進著。

在人生中的選擇，需要面對的，都能讓自己更加成長。

願所有人都能夠對自己的人生，自己的理想更加邁進！

與我們一起 再見-未來!
========================================

混音/製作：
Wayson Hsu
影像製作：
王英丞
拍攝：
禺華
Zhi-jun Do

Zangief 桑吉爾夫
彼岸曙光 Stay Wide Awake
粗大Band / Thick Big Band

========================================
Apple misic: https://music.apple.com/…/%E6%97%A2%E5%AE%9A%E5%…/1455196352

Spotify:https://open.spotify.com/artist/3bt2P5IEM3aZWvO0N09j3N

==========================================================

背負誰的期望 你說成名在望
卻撐不起這整個世界的重量
你所謂的成長 太多既定印象
給了多少錢衡量 賣掉你的夢想
會不會贏 我不在意
Cant you see the man I want to be
(All I want to be)
總是沒那麼容易
記得挫敗的曾經Cause I
Still tr​​ying even though that’s hard to be
(So hard to be)
就算世界已改變 don’t worry take my hand

總是預測未來 總是意料之外
成或敗我依然握緊我的麥
會不會贏 我不在意
Cant you see the man I want to be
(All I want to be)
總是沒那麼容易
記得挫敗的曾經Cause I
Still tr​​ying even though that’s hard to be
(So hard to be)
就算世界已改變 don’t worry take my hand

我回頭看從前 抉擇時的膽怯
我何曾不後悔 偽裝的每一天
每天在說服自己放過自己
日復一日自己都變得不自己
我不再重演 不再後悔
Cant you see the man I want to be
(All I want to be)
總是沒那麼容易
記得挫敗的曾經 cause I
We were chosen to believe
What’s next Stop losing yourself
Beyond expectation
誰能真的看清楚

Welcoming our first content for HijabsterReacts in 2020! This year we’re planning to do more fun, loud & beyond your wildest expectation, so stay tuned!
______________________

This content was spontaneous! Just finished shooting & my officemates just out of the blue searched my name on YouTube. And bammmm, ‘terpampang’ my few years back Music Video!

One of our friends quickly ran to get the camera (which we first did not notice!). She placed the camera there & recorded this moment. A moment full of laughter-tears-amazeballs hahaha. So enjoy!!!

Disclaimer : This (video, topic, reaction) was all spontaneous. Just have fun watching aight! Hehe
______________________

Editors of HijabsterReacts : Fana @itsmefunna // Faisal @fay.five

Original MusicVideo :
https://youtu.be/FTdMNrItkwU
https://youtu.be/rvTPMmJGbLA