關於 e 200 estate ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

「澳洲Cobram Estate特級初榨橄欖油」補貨囉
#得金牌的橄欖油 #價格親民 ＃文末有驚喜活動
👉好油下單: ：https://gbf.tw/faaab
特價優惠＋消費滿$3,200元，加贈『澳洲dindi naturals植物萃取手工皂110gX1』
-------------------
Cobram Estate特級初榨橄欖油是我家的長年食用油，深受辣粉們喜愛。 這次間隔很久才讓大家補貨，最主要是受到疫情影響，國際船運排太久，拍謝讓大家久等了。

橄欖油非常萬用：不局限於西餐，烘焙與料理都可以喔！
油醋醬, 麵包抹醬, 炒菜, 煎肉, 濃湯, 紅醬與青醬, 做麵包,蛋糕,餅乾等等。
👉辣媽的橄欖油與麵包: https://reurl.cc/YW58EX

------
『Cobram Estate橄欖油特色』
＊ Cobram Estate連獲紐約、日本世界橄欖油大賽 ＃金牌，售價親民。
＊ 酸價介於0.1~0.3，可聞到新鮮草香，喝入口非常乾淨，也有不錯的嗆辣尾韻。
＊ 發煙點介於200～215度間，適合煎、煮、炒、久燉及涼拌。
＊ 通過化學分析及感官檢測，擁有澳洲政府的工作守則認證(Code of Practice, CoP)三角標章。
＊ 每瓶瓶口都是伸縮油嘴，方便使用。
＊ 低溫貨櫃、低溫倉儲。

------------------

📌最推薦組合:
第一次購買的朋友，我推薦組合A，可以任選喜歡的口味，任6瓶$1440。

有選擇障礙的朋友，可以直接挑選A-1組合，完全不用燒腦嘗到各種味道，又能一次補足庫存。
A-1組合: 375mlx6(細緻x3經典x3)+250mlx3(大蒜x1檸檬x1綜合香草x1)
團購價NT$2,160(原價2280元)

A組合裡，包含純橄欖油(2種)與風味橄欖油(3種)，大家可以依據自己喜歡的口味挑選。建議，可以每種口味都試試看，既可嘗到單純橄欖油的香草味，也有每次開團，都超受歡迎的風味橄欖油。

這3款風味橄欖油，每次開團必熱銷。
『大蒜風味橄欖油』(銷售第1名)
用它來炒菜，就不需要額外自己剝蒜頭泡橄欖油了。不論是煮義大利麵、或簡單淋在燙青菜上，都聞得到大蒜香氣。

『檸檬風味橄欖油』
很適合海鮮料理或生菜沙拉，例如料理西式鮭魚時，或者自己調製檸檬油醋醬時，也可以直接用檸檬風味橄欖油來調製，就不需要額外的檸檬汁。檸檬油醋醬的比例是，檸檬風味橄欖油3大匙 : 巴薩米克醋1大匙，再加上鹽胡椒調味即可。

『綜合香草風味橄欖油』，很適合雞肉或各式肉排，例如意式香草雞腿排，就可以用這個綜合香草風味橄欖油，味道超好。直接淋在Pizza上，讓Pizza風味更提升喔！

📌最優惠組合：適合家中用油量大的朋友，一次備好六瓶大容量的橄欖油。
B-1.750mlx6 (細緻x3+經典x3)，團購價NT$2,520(原價NT$3300)

📌橄欖油老饕組合: 非常喜歡橄欖油醇厚風味的朋友，請挑選組合B-3。
B-3.500mlx2(皮夸爾x1+卡洛蒂納x1)，團購價NT$950(原價NT$1360)

這兩款口味是頂級特選單一品種的橄欖油，味道算是橄欖油中的進階版，味道比經典口味或細緻口味，更多層次，也更濃郁。我覺得這是屬於橄欖油老饕等級的，非常喜歡橄欖油特殊香氣的朋友，一定要挑這一個組合。

📌喜歡義式油醋醬的朋友，一定要加購巴薩米克醋組合: C-1.巴薩米克紅葡萄醋(陳年橡木桶一年釀)+白葡萄醋250ml，團購價TWD695 (原價TWD900)

巴薩米克醋是歐洲家庭廚房必備的調味料，就像台灣廚房裡，家家一定有烏醋。而且義式油醋醬，簡直是各種沙拉的萬能醬汁，搭任何沙拉都好好吃。即便只是簡單的小番茄+羅勒葉，拌上義式油醋醬，小番茄立刻變身為高級義式餐廳的知名前菜。

📌澳洲Beerenberg果醬/料理醬 #新品

在1971年第一罐自製果醬問世迄今，Beerenberg產品標榜是在自家農場採收製成的。 因為自製果醬的天然美味，目前出口超過20多個國家，有300多個飯店使用他們的果醬，也是 ＃澳洲星級以上的酒店指定用果醬。Beerenberg果醬與料理醬，沒有添加人工防腐劑，讓人吃得安心。

我最推薦『藍莓』與『覆盆子莓』口味，吃起來順口不甜膩，大家一定要試試看。

📌澳洲瑪瑞河鹽
這款河鹽，呈現片狀結晶，非常好吃，不死鹹，尾韻甘美，含有天然的碘、鎂、鈣等礦物質。這款河鹽，是我家煎牛排時，才會上桌的好鹽，高品質的牛排，在這款河鹽搭配下，馬上再高一個檔次，很推薦。

📌 Goulter’s的未過濾有機蘋果醋奇異果醋
跟一般果醋很不一樣，這款果醋是用100%蘋果汁(或奇異果醋)基底發釀釀製而成，成品中沒有額外添加糖或水，飲用方式：蘋果醋：水=1:10 稀釋後喝。如果不習慣無甜味的蘋果醋，也可以加一點蜂蜜一起喝。
保存方式：開封後不需冷藏，常溫保存即可。

📌 Arataki紐西蘭麥蘆卡膠蜜潤喉糖
這款喉糖，是使用麥蘆卡蜂膠，依比例混合麥蘆卡蜂蜜，製作而成的。每次開團，都很受歡迎的好商品，香甜潤喉，相對於蜂膠，更方便食用。這次開團三種口味(檬、柑橘、草莓)可以選擇，大家可以依據喜好挑選喔。

📌澳洲earthYARD單方精油
這是採用澳洲植物提煉出來的純天然單方精油，很適合拿來按摩、做精油放鬆使用。
我最喜歡『茶樹』與『檸檬』味道。茶樹精油有獨有的木香，加上一些涼涼味道，我很喜歡。茶樹精油除了按摩、聞香外，也可以趁洗地板或抹布的時候，滴一滴就可以讓室內有淡淡的香氣喔！

***** 除了團購之外，還幫大家爭取到抽獎的機會，請詳見抽獎辦法喔 (限台灣本島粉絲)！
抽獎贈品：
澳洲Cobram Estate單一品種特級初榨橄欖油(皮夸爾風味) 500mlx1(市價$780元),
澳洲Cobram Estate特級初榨橄欖油(檸檬風味) 250mlx1(市價$280元),
澳洲Didi Naturals 手工皂(無精油、裸皂) 110gx1 (市價＄250) ，以上共計3個名額。
活動時間為開團至 9/22 18:00截止，抽獎名單會於團購結束後公佈。
抽獎條件為：
1) 按讚、分享此文。
2) 於本文底下任意留言並標記2位朋友。

------------------
辣媽的橄欖油食譜整理
▶️橄欖油與麵包的結合 https://reurl.cc/YW58EX
▶️橄欖油巧克力磅蛋糕 https://ppt.cc/fj1ZVx
▶️巧克力大麵包 https://goo.gl/R41C2b
▶️低卡橄欖油佐餐麵包 https://goo.gl/uAqKwA
▶️大蒜橄欖油醬 https://goo.gl/9E5BgN
▶️ 晨烤全麥核桃麵包+ 油漬番茄 https://ppt.cc/f5kGwx

▍好油連結 ▍https://gbf.tw/faaab
▍出貨時間 ▍團購結束後5-7個工作日陸續出貨。(9/28截止)
▍付款方式 ▍信用卡、匯款、貨到付款
▍運費說明 ▍
(1)未滿2520元，運費80元，訂購滿2520元免運（限本島）
(2)貨到付款120元運費。（限本島）
(3)外島訂購未滿2600元，須額外酌收200元運費，海外不寄送。
▍廠商客服 ▍
電話：02-27846655
E-mail: admin@tullochfoods.com /
Line@: http://bit.ly/2Og1qqs。 這次團購帶來新品是澳洲有名的果醬，吃起來不膩又好吃，可以一起購入喔！

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”

Do you know that Suffolk House is more than 200 years old? ⏳

Today, you can take a tour to visit this historical mansion 📸 - in what used to be a pepper estate owned by Captain Francis Light! 🇬🇧️

While you are here, check out the Western restaurant inside. 🍴 Suffolk House also provides a nice setting for wedding ceremonies and corporate gatherings. 🤵👰
▫️▫️▫️▫️▫️
Suffolk House, Penang
🌏 George Town, Penang
🗺 5.41089 N, 100.30538 E
☎️ (+60) 4-228 3930
📱 (+60) 12-438 8683
📧 info@suffolkhouse.com.my
▫️▫️▫️▫️▫️
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⚪️⚪️⚪️ Taste
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⚪️⚪️ Presentation
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⚪️⚪️ Ambience
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⚪️⚪️ Hospitality
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⚪️⚪️⚪️⚪️⚪️⚪️ Value
▫️▫️▫️▫️▫️
🔎 Find out more about Suffolk House here:
https://www.penangfoodforthought.com/2016/04/suffolk-house.html

🍴 Directory of fine-dining restaurants:
https://www.penangfoodforthought.com/p/fine-dining.html

👍 Most comprehensive dining guide ever!
https://www.penangfoodforthought.com/p/restaurants.html

📨 Please stay tuned to Penang Food For Thought for more foodie updates!
▫️▫️▫️▫️▫️
#SuffolkHouseRestaurant #SuffolkHousePenang #SuffolkHouse #YKHGroup #YKH #FineDining #VisitPenang #TravelPenang #PenangHeritage #HistoricalMansion #GeorgianArchitecture #GardenHouse #Mansion #Staycation #Wanderlust #Foodveler #PenangFoodForThought

繼上次我們在麗寶賽道體驗過令人血脈噴張的Mercedes-AMG E63之後，這次要為大家帶來較為親民的Mercedes-Benz E300雙車型試駕，分別為Sedan以及Estate。

這次E-Class小改款，除了在水箱護罩以及頭燈造型的小幅微調之外，最大的亮點莫過於全新造型的方向盤，還有除了E200 Avantgarde標配10.25吋數位儀表暨觸控中控螢幕之外，其他車型皆標配12.3吋數位儀表暨觸控中控螢幕。

動力方面這次導入全新的 M 254 2.0 升直列 4 缸汽油引擎，搭配 ISG 整合式啟動馬達構成 48V 輕型油電複合系統，在E 200 可輸出 197hp (+14hp) 最大馬力及 320Nm 峰值扭力；E 300 可輸出 258hp (+14hp) 最大馬力及 370Nm 峰值扭力。

科技安全方面，這次E-Class皆標配23P智慧駕駛輔助套件，包含智能定速測距輔助、智能轉向輔助、閃避轉向輔助、主動防撞輔助、主動盲點輔助含離車警示輔助、主動車道維持輔助等，更標配了360度環景攝影，讓車主可以更輕鬆安全駕馭車輛。

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
抽獎活動又來啦！

現在只要到Go車誌官網，於本片文章「【購車分析】新系統導入！嘉偉哥傳授選配心法！Mercedes-Benz E300 運動版/Mercedes-Benz E300 Estate 運動版｜雙車型試駕」下方留言，寫下觀看影片的心得，我們將會抽出【Go車誌獅寶寶】五隻！

（*留言只有在官網文章下有效，Facebook粉絲專頁與Youtube的留言都無效喔*）

https://www.buycartv.com/video/internal-test-drive/6992-mercedes-benz-e300-mercedes-benz-e300-estate.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
段落章節：

0:00 開頭
0:59車輛介紹
2:15外觀介紹
5:47動力規格
7:51空間機能
11:52內裝配備
18:06車輛教學
20:00試駕心得
28:16特別感謝

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
音樂來源：

Song: Luke Bergs - Chill
Music provided by Vlog No Copyright Music.
Video Link: https://youtu.be/i15kfJPhG0Y

Song: MusicbyAden - Distant
Music provided by Vlog No Copyright Music.
Creative Commons - Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
Video Link: https://youtu.be/7TGAomURLp4

Song: Tobjan - Memories
Music provided by Vlog No Copyright Music.
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported
Video Link: https://youtu.be/AlG68LXJmwo

Song: DayFox - Foxylicious
Music provided by Vlog No Copyright Music.
Video Link: https://youtu.be/919HIMIvoNQ

Song: Amine Maxwell - Amelia
Music provided by Vlog No Copyright Music.
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported
Video Link: https://youtu.be/N1jADSL290Y

Song: MusicbyAden - California
Music provided by Vlog No Copyright Music.
Creative Commons - Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
Video Link: https://youtu.be/GQf7cB4fY6Q

新在哪裡？
●台灣賓士引進 E 200 Estate AVANTGARDE (新台幣 292 萬元起) 與 E 300 Estate 運動版 (新台幣 354 萬元起) 共 2 款 E-Class 旅行車
●導入 EQ Boost 48V 輕型複合動力，可提供 14hp 額外動力
●換上新款保險桿、水箱罩、頭尾燈組
●換上新款電容式感應方向盤
●AVANTGARDE 套件配置多邊形鍍鉻雙柵式水箱護罩及前保桿下緣水平鍍鉻飾條。
●標配 Intelligent Drive 智慧駕駛輔助套件 (23P)，新增離車警示功能與主動轉向煞車輔助等多樣主動安全功能
●Estate 行李廂標準置物空間為 640 公升，搭配兩段式後座椅背調整更增加額外 30 公升透過後座椅背傾倒最高可達 1,820 公升
●Estate 標配 KEYLESS-GO 免鑰匙車門解鎖搭配 HANDS-FREE 行李箱感應啟閉功能

Mercedes-Benz E-Class 車系的前身可追溯至 1953 年推出的 W120 車系，旅行車的始祖則可追溯至 W123 世代，E-Class 之名則在 1993 年 W124 進行小改款時正式確立，至今發展出 5 個世代，75 年來在全球市場累計售出約 1,400 萬輛，而最新的 W213 世代自 2016 年在國內推出以來也售出將近 1.5 萬輛，是品牌相當重要的中堅戰力，今年 3/3 小改款房車及旅行車登場，5/27 則推出小改款雙門轎跑及敞蓬車後，全車系導入新世代的科技與動力技術，提供中大型豪華車款買家更新穎的購車選擇。

國內市場方面，台灣賓士選在今年 10/15正式發表，導入房車 (W213)、旅行車 (S213) 及雙門跑車 (C238) 共 3 種車體形式，編成合計達 10 款 [請按此參閱]，本次試駕車型為建議售價新台幣 292 萬元起的 E 200 Estate AVANTGARDE。

#你好賓士
#旅行車
#記得開啟cc字幕

延伸閱讀：https://www.7car.tw/article/read/70551
更多車訊都在【小七車觀點】：https://www.7car.tw/
【七哥試駕都在這邊】：https://reurl.cc/O1xnWr
--------------------------------------
「小七哥」親自實測嚴選的商品都在【七車坊】
https://shop.7car.tw/
台灣商用車專屬網站【商車王】
https://www.truck.tw/

記得訂閱追蹤YouTube唷 》》》
7Car →https://reurl.cc/pdQL7d
7Car新聞頻道 →https://reurl.cc/MvnRrm
台灣車文庫 →https://reurl.cc/ar61QQ

台灣賓士今日 (10/15) 下午選在松山文創園區 2 號倉庫正式發表小改款 Mercedes-Benz E-Class 車系，導入房車 (W213)、旅行車 (S213) 及雙門跑車 (C238) 共 3 種車體形式，房車引進編成及建議售價依序為 E 200 AVANTGARDE (新台幣 269 萬元起)、E 200 LUXURY (新台幣 286 萬元起)、E 300 運動版 (新台幣 332 萬元起)、E 300 EXCLUSIVE (新台幣 342 萬元起) 及 AMG E 53 (新台幣 470 萬元起)；旅行車提供 E 200 Avantgarde (新台幣 292 萬元起) 及 E 300 運動版 (新台幣 354 萬元起)；雙門轎跑則為 E 200 (新台幣 292 萬元起)、E 300 (新台幣 354 萬元起) 及 AMG E 53 (新台幣 492 萬元起)。

延伸閱讀：https://www.7car.tw/articles/read/69935
更多資訊都在「小七車觀點」：https://www.7car.tw/