關於 de place 2020 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

[#甜點新聞 / News] Ritz Paris 甜點主廚 François Perret 開設專屬甜點店
Ritz Paris Le Comptoir / The Ritz Paris’ renowned pastry chef François Perret opens new pastry destination Ritz Paris Le Comptoir

歷經幾乎一整年的封鎖，巴黎的餐飲界正準備恢復活力，而過去一年在疫情中逆勢求生的甜點界，同樣有些令人興奮的新消息。6 月 7 日，巴黎麗池酒店（Ritz Paris）甜點主廚 François Perret 將在酒店後方的靜巷內，揭幕他籌備許久的甜點店 Ritz Paris Le Comptoir，這也是繼莫里斯酒店（Le Meurice）後，另一家巴黎宮殿級酒店（palace）開設獨立甜點店。其他宮殿級酒店如巴黎東方文華（Mandarin Oriental Paris）、克里庸酒店（Hôtel de Crillon）等也有供外賣的甜點舖，但皆設在酒店內，並未獨立開設店家。

François Perret 主廚是巴黎最知名、也最有才華的甜點主廚之一，同時也是 2019 年世界最佳甜點主廚（由 Les Grandes Tables du Monde 頒發）。他自 2016 麗池酒店整修完畢重新開幕以來，就帶領麗池酒店的甜點廚房。他的知名甜點如 #瑪德蓮法式慕斯蛋糕（Entremets madeleine）、#大理石慕斯蛋糕（Entremets cake marbré）、#梨籠（Poire en cage）、#蜂蜜（Le miel）等，都是膾炙人心的作品。自2019 年聖誕節在凡登廣場（Place de Vendôme）設立 pop-up 甜點店大受歡迎後，2020 年年中開始，他便以「Le Comptoir」之名在夏季及節慶時期持續開設 pop-up 甜點店，但這次不再是臨時櫃台，而是貨真價實的實體店面。而且據說麗池酒店已經在尋找第二個店面的合適位置，將來計畫將此品牌拓展至國際。

📌 #外帶為主_因應消費習慣重新設計商品

外帶、外賣在過去一整年中，成為全球餐飲業的新常規，雖然在巴黎，甜點店本來就以外賣為主，但畢竟麗池是高級酒店，開設專門提供外賣的店面，仍然引起許多人好奇是否與疫情相關。但 François Perret 主廚否認，他說自己自從 2019 年參與 Netflix 的影集「The Chef in Truck」拍攝、在美國洛杉磯以餐車形式巡迴一圈後，便開始了解街頭小吃文化、並為以手進食的魅力所吸引，他認為「用手拿著食物直接進食，能夠與食物產生更直接的連結」。

他為 Le Comptoir 設計的產品，自然也和在酒店內的不同。為了更適合外帶，甜點的呈現方式做了不少創新的改變，例如將原本法國人早餐不可少的 #巧克力麵包（pain au chocolat）從圓潤的形狀改為細長條形、而且減少酥皮掉屑，不僅適合邊走邊吃、即使坐在電腦前面一邊吃早餐一邊喝咖啡，也不用擔心清理。而這靈感來自於過去一年中，因為酒店停業，他花了大把時間構思新店面，早上拿著巧克力麵包和咖啡，就直接坐在電腦前面開工的親身體驗。店內的千層派以及鹹食三明治等，也都是同樣的形式。

他並推出對法國人來說非常新奇的「#甜點飲料」（boissons pâtisseries / cake shakes），將自己的代表作如瑪德蓮、大理石蛋糕、焦糖小船（Barquette caramel）等製作成飲料形式，結合慕斯、奶餡、醬汁與脆片等，可以用喝的方式品嚐甜點。他也將原本大型的瑪德蓮法式慕斯蛋糕尺寸縮小、從慕斯蛋糕改為一般的瑪德蓮蛋糕體，並加上不同顏色的巧克力淋面，方便攜帶、運送，還能在常溫下保持五天。

📌 #明星甜點主廚持續引領潮流

Ritz Paris Le Comptoir 和 Le Meurice 酒店以 Cédric Grolet 主廚為名的甜點店一樣，都是以甜點主廚本人及其作品為主要賣點。Ritz Paris Le Comptoir 不僅貫徹 François Perret 主廚的想法，其主視覺更以漫畫筆觸繪製了主廚本人的形象，再加上麗池酒店的創辦人 César Ritz 與和他搭檔，奠定現代廚房編制、發明第一個「à la carte menu」（由客人自己選擇前菜、主菜、甜點的菜單）的名廚 Auguste Escoffier 作為主要宣傳之一，顯然對 François Perret 主廚極為看重。

📌 #精緻餐飲平民化的風潮

過去數年中，巴黎的精緻餐飲逐漸讓位給更年輕、平民化的餐飲形式；加上疫情的打擊，觀光客銷聲匿跡，迫使許多高級飯店重新思考定位及經營策略，前陣子 Hôtel Plaza Athénée 與 Ducasse Paris 集團結束逾 20 年的合作關係，也可看作其中一個案例。本次麗池酒店開設甜點店，也是延續類似的思考。不僅能夠接觸到更多一般消費者，甚至產品本身也貼合本地顧客（而非觀光客）的生活習慣（如上面提到的巧克力麵包）。在接下來的數年內，無論在哪個國家，更加在地、平民化的餐飲模式，顯然都將成為顯學。

Ritz Paris Le Comptoir
38 Rue Cambon, 75001 Paris
營業時間：週一至週六，8:00 至 19:00
2021年 6 月 7 日開幕

🔖 延伸閱讀：

巴黎麗池酒店下午茶：https://tinyurl.com/25rvv2rt

2020 年國王派與 François Perret 主廚的 pop-up 甜點店：https://tinyurl.com/2v67jxfy

與世界級大師同行，François Perret 主廚的甜點食譜書 Instants Sucrés 《巴黎麗思飯店的甜點時刻》（大境文化&出版菊文化(生活美食地圖)）：https://tinyurl.com/79uhvkj4

Fraçois Perret 主廚 Instagram 帳戶：https://www.instagram.com/francoisperret/

Ritz Paris Le Comptoir Instagram 帳戶：https://tinyurl.com/3zwhwab7

#yingspastryguide #yingc #paris #françoisperret #ritzparis #外帶甜點

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”

在2020的年末，之外遇到了一群「狂野」的人們，推著之外走向戶外，走往不同的世界。

這些人是來自 禹樂空間整合 的夥伴們，由主人 Scott Min Chih Lu 與首席設計師 黃志凌領軍，以他們狂野卻細膩、樂觀卻謹慎、開放卻條理的公司理念，帶著之外做起了不熟悉，卻覺得值得一試的故事篇章。

■

這個故事，叫 ''#ThePlace’’。

我們要形塑一個空間。

這個空間可以是城市的、可以是曠野的、可以是已經定型的、可以是完全虛無的。這個空間的三維由我們重新設定，即便是一個人們再熟悉不過的空間，我們嘗試「幻化」、「重構」、「再生」，成就出這個空間的絕美地全新樣貌。

這些空間，攪散了五種感知的體認，重新重組，成為「屬於我們的空間」觀點。

這，就是難以定義 ''The Place’’ 是什麼企劃的主要原因。

■

承襲著 禹樂空間整合 的空間的塑造、整合的能量，加上之外食物料理設計的根源，內務經理凱莉不同科班的花藝設計，並與所有希望加入空間幻視改造盟友，期許我們可以一起，來將台灣的各個角落形成「空間」，啟動變化。

請想像每一個你所熟稔的場域，瞬間變成一張白紙，由禹樂重構原有空間的素材成為骨架、由之外重構關於五感的體認與味覺的加成，而成為台灣一個一個的嶄新亮光。
很瘋吧。

我們沒有時程表，我們已經啟動。是不是需要盟友？有沒有「合拍」的人們加入？會不會需要更多嚮往「空間」的主廚加入？

我們先說到這邊。

Let “The Place” here,
Let “Things” happen.

■
#ThePlace 計畫｜萬大北溪河窗的星空

肩負著搜羅而來的珍味食材
上溯汩汩野溪
探尋台灣山野
委身在自然之中
升起柴火共同煮食
裊裊炊煙勾勒菜餚輪廓
炭火生香挑逗鼻息
星空為蓬感受生活

□□□□□□□□□□□□

Special thanks to
Rockland
Fjällräven Taiwan
O&CO Taiwan
□
Ingredients selected
魚事在澎湖
珠寶盒法式點心坊 boîte de bijou
拾穗 Bakery
Good Food You / 主廚的秘密食材庫
LOUU https://louufood.co

□□□□□□□□□□□□

禹樂空間整合官網連結：https://yule-space.com/
禹樂空間整合Youtube頻道：https://reurl.cc/n0E668

📷 Vito Photography 劉育維
🧗‍♀️ 登山嚮導 劉育維

【美劇癮】2020美劇回顧 I 推薦及失望之選 I 韓劇癮 I 日劇癮？ 2020年12月
? https://youtu.be/DKvprgOiLoE ?
◼公認推薦
~~~~~~~~~~
The Boys
The Crown
The Queen's Gambit
The Mandalorian
The Umbrella Academy
Tiger King
The Good Place
South Park The Pandemic Special

◼OPTION 推薦
~~~~~~~~~~~
Better Call Saul
Ozark
Money Heist (La Casa de Papel)
What We Do in the Shadows
‘BoJack Horseman’ (Netflix)
upload
Dark
Ted Lasso
Lovecraft Country

◼失望之選
~~~~~~~~~
HBOs
Undoing
Westworld
Witcher
The Haunting of Bly Manor
Doctor Who 神祕博士。
Rick and Morty

◼點播平台大戰2020

◼韓劇癮
雙甲小食店
火車
邪惡之花
回到18歲
驅魔麵館
機智醫生生活

◼日劇癮
如果30歲還是處男，似乎就能成為魔法師
今際之國的闖關者

【 米台日 】如果你會在網路上搜尋古著知識，那麼你一定會聽過的一號神秘人物！
從2015年開始，在FB粉專上分享各種知識，取名由來為「美國、台灣、日本」，宗旨在分享三個國家相關的服飾文化，是由 Shaun哥 所成立。

Shaun哥 非常喜愛古著和時裝，現在一家住在洛杉磯，時常跑知名古著市集Rose Bowl尋寶，並與許多古著圈高手和日本設計師友好（像是熊谷隆志、遠藤憲昭等），粉專中分享的內容之廣泛，涵蓋古著、文化、時裝知識，其分析與內容，如果不是大量學習及鑽研，絕對是不可能達成的，我想看過文章的人都會讚嘆不已！

現在和米嫂創立了品牌【 Vine and Crane 】，以此名義代理了一些日本品牌至台灣，這次的「米台日 Vintage Trunk Show」，除了有Shaun哥精選的古著之外，更有 Vine and Crane 極少量古著加工服飾，絕對值得大家前去感受看看！

時間：2020/12/03 ~ 2020/12/28（一月份可能有台中場）
地點：附近 by plain-me （plain-me 富錦街店）
米台日IG： shaunlin0815
品牌IG： vineandcrane

－－－

在2015年的時候偶然在Facebook上看到米台日的文章，真的是讓我非常震驚，完全就像挖到寶一樣，因為這些Vintage知識文章，別說中文了，有些知識大概連英文日文都找不到了！
而且從米台日的文章中還能發覺他和許多日本品牌設計師熟識，感覺就是個超級神秘的服飾圈內人士，雖然我從沒進入服飾產業，只是個在網路上打滾的穿搭分享者，但幾乎只要在社群平台上曝光過的穿搭或服飾領域的高手，就算我沒有追蹤，至少也會聽過或看過幾次，可是米台日是誰甚至還是個團隊我實在摸不著頭緒，完全不知道這位神秘高手是何許人阿！
後來有幸和米台日本尊聊天，參加了一次飯局，裡面有許多業界前輩和和同好，我也才發現Shaun哥不僅僅是喜好分享知識，更是樂於結交朋友！也難怪認識的人如此之多啊！！(那次飯局有好多前輩我都是第一次看到本尊，我像個小粉絲一樣好緊張XD)

這次的「米台日 Vintage Trunk Show」對於古著有興趣的朋友，我是極力推薦去逛，沒興趣的朋友我也很推薦可以去感受一下，每件古著都有用標籤寫上中文敘述，可以讓人更容易理解與感受到古著的魅力。

放眼台灣，願意分享這麼多和這麼深的古著和文化知識，加上能讓藤原裕、熊谷隆志、遠藤憲昭、尾花大輔、今野智弘發文祝賀，如此等級的服飾圈前輩，我想絕對是屈指可數啊！

甚至可以讓我願意說：「你就算不訂閱我們，但也一定要去關注他啊！」

－－－

感謝 準哥＆001 當天跟我們一起玩～
圈入準 IG：chainloop
001 IG：chainloop_uno001

感謝 plain-me 提供這麼好的場地辦展！
Fujin by plain-me
IG：fujinbyplainme

感謝 KEEDAN 把我們拍得這麼帥！
https://keedan.com/
IG：keedan_mag

－－－

【今天穿什麼？】

庭：
Beanie：Vivienne Westwood
Vest：Bleu de Paname
Necktie：GUCCI (vintage)
Corduroy Suit：Sense of place
Sneakers：New balance M990BD

家：
Outer：rebuild by needles
Vest：engineered garments
Hat：coeur
Top：uniqlo
Pants：discovered
Shoes：George Cox

－－－

如果有感受到我們の用心～
請不要吝嗇你的手指～
幫我們「按讚、留言、追蹤、分享」！
每一個支持都是我們往前走的動力！
真的非常謝謝大家～～～

Music from Artlist.
透過我的連結訂購！
讓我們一起多得到 2個月 的免費使用吧！
https://artlist.io/familybros-821965

__歡迎來這邊找我們聊穿搭__
Facebook ►https://www.fb.com/wwwfamilybroscom
Instagram ►https://www.instagram.com/fmbs.wear
Website ►http://www.familybros.com/

__ 合作需求請來信 __
Email ► Familybros@hotmail.com

#米台日 #古著展售會 #帶你逛古著店

【 此影片含合作內容 WeLab Bank

今條影片好開心收到港產虛擬銀行 WeLab Bank
試用佢哋既Debit Card
於是我就計劃左一直以來都好想做嘅影片就係
「漢堡包馬拉松」
呢六間小店都係之前收集觀眾嘅意見最多人推介嘅六間舖頭

睇完呢段影片大家有興趣嘅可以試吓
同埋有興趣記得申請 WeLab Debit Card
宜家係11月30日前成功開戶
所有消費可享高達 8% 回贈*，更多詳情：https://welab.app.link/TVEc8BnL4ab

*受條款及細則約束，2020年11月30日之前開戶的新客戶憑卡作合資格交易，首HKD3,000可獲得7%現金回贈，而其餘任何合資格消費均可賺取額外1%現金回贈，上限為HKD 1,000。詳情請瀏覽WeLab Bank官方網站上適用的相關條款及細則。

1。Burger Joys
地址：灣仔駱克道42-50號君悅居地下E舖
Shop E, G/F, De Fenwick, 42-50 Lockhart Road, Wan Chai
港鐵灣仔站 C 出口, 步行約3分鐘
電話號碼：27871288




2.Honbo （灣仔店）
地址 ：灣仔日街6-7號日新樓地下B號舖
Shop B, G/F, New Sun House, 6-7 Sun Street, Wan Chai
港鐵金鐘站 F 出口, 步行約7分鐘
電話號碼：25678970


3.Texas Burger
地址 ：旺角亞皆老街8號朗豪坊12樓1A號舖
Shop 1A, 12/F, Langham Place, 8 Argyle Street, Mong Kok
港鐵旺角站 C3 出口, 港鐵旺角站 E1 出口, 港鐵旺角東站 B 出口
電話號碼：34885005

4. Burgerman
地址 ：大角咀埃華街95-97號地下
Shop C, G/F., 95-97 Ivy St., Tai Kok Tsui
港鐵奧運站 A1 出口, 步行約6分鐘
電話號碼：23313973


5.轉角‧見
地址 ：荃灣西樓角路202-216號荃昌中心昌寧大廈地下66號舖
Shop 66, G/F, Cheong Ning Building, Tsuen Cheong Centre, 202-216 Sai Lau Kok Road, Tsuen Wan
港鐵荃灣站 B3 出口, 步行約6分鐘
電話號碼：54887124


6.嘉寶漢堡
地址 ：葵涌青山公路葵涌段499號嘉寶大廈地下A&B號舖
Shop A&B, G/F, Kar Po Mansion, 499 Castle Peak Road, Kwai Chung
電話號碼：61258419

more about me：
►工作EAMIL ►manson_yee@yahoo.com.hk
►FACEBOOK ► https://m.facebook.com/Iammanson-1463381420592597/
►Instagram ►https://www.instagram.com/iam.manson/?hl=zh-hk
►飲食分享IG ►https://www.instagram.com/ffatfoodie/?hl=zh-hk
►我的PARTY ROOM ►https://www.instagram.com/fathouse.party/?hl=zh-h