關於 day 26 are we in this together ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Greater Grace is Coming!

““For truly, in this city against your holy servant, Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever your hand and your council foreordained to happen. Now, Lord, look at their threats, and grant to your servants to speak your word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of your holy Servant Jesus.” When they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were gathered together. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness. The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul. Not one of them claimed that anything of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. With great power, the apostles gave their testimony of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Great grace was on them all. For neither was there among them any who lacked, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet, and distribution was made to each, according as anyone had need.” (Acts‬ ‭4:27-35‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

In a post from months ago, I had shared that Pharaoh’s dream of the seven fat cows and seven skinny cows have an end-time prophetic meaning of seven years of plenty before the Rapture and seven years of severe famine during the seven years of Tribulation.

“Joseph said to Pharaoh, “The dream of Pharaoh is one. What God is about to do he has declared to Pharaoh. The seven good cattle are seven years; and the seven good heads of grain are seven years. The dream is one. The seven thin and ugly cattle that came up after them are seven years, and also the seven empty heads of grain blasted with the east wind; they will be seven years of famine. That is the thing which I spoke to Pharaoh. What God is about to do he has shown to Pharaoh. Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt. There will arise after them seven years of famine, and all the plenty will be forgotten in the land of Egypt. The famine will consume the land, and the plenty will not be known in the land by reason of that famine which follows; for it will be very grievous. The dream was doubled to Pharaoh, because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.” (Genesis‬ ‭41:25-32‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

I believe we are in/entering that season of seven plentiful years.

In the seven plentiful years, we are going to see things like the early church experienced, but at a much greater magnitude. It is the Lord’s final harvest of souls before the Rapture.

We will see:

- Bold believers rise up to win souls and amazing miracles happening when they preach the Gospel.

- The world shaken by the Holy Spirit and a huge outpouring of the Spirit upon all flesh. Even unbelievers will receive dreams and visions from God and experience His power.

- A new level of unity and love among the body of Christ.

- A prosperous church that shares her wealth with those in need; the wealth of the nations will be transferred to believers.

We are not going to leave this world as a bruised, battered, cowering church. We will be prospering in all things together and prepared as a radiant bride for the Lord. This is the effect of us collectively receiving more revelation about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“But the path of the righteous is like the dawning light, that shines more and more until the perfect day.” (Proverbs‬ ‭4:18‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

The path of the righteous (believers) will shine more and more until the perfect day.

“For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For this perishable body must become imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable body will have become imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then what is written will happen: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “Death, where is your sting? Hades, where is your victory?”” (1 Corinthians‬ ‭15:25-26, 53-55‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

The last enemy that will be put under Jesus’ feet and abolished is death. This means that before the Rapture, all other enemies would be under the feet of the body of Christ. This includes sickness, aging, weakness, poverty, broken relationships, and all types of bondages that have plagued the church throughout history.

We would be so full of life that the only thing remaining is to be clothed with our glorified body and meet Jesus in the air.

Are you excited about the seven years of plenty? If the early church experienced great grace, the end-time church before the Rapture will experience greater grace! Don’t just be a spectator—ask Him to let you participate in a significant way, to bringing about good change for His kingdom!

One revelation that the body of Christ will grow in is this: receiving supernatural youth renewal to live young, healthy, strong, and beautiful like Jesus. I believe that “Younger and Younger” (the eBook and audio) are being used to enlighten believers about this part of our inheritance that is often neglected. Join me on a 31-day youth renewal journey to meet a new you—it is a transformation that everyone can see:
https://bit.ly/younger-and-younger

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”

街拍in西門町，攝影師：挖ㄟ阿母
But…媽，你手指入鏡很大耶👆
5月歌單【好事自在Latte】

05/31星期一
14:04:05胖子/自由發揮
14:07:20你是我的菜/周湯豪
14:11:16I Need Your Love/Calvin Harris
14:16:19孤單的形狀/陳勢安
14:19:51self/陳綺貞
14:24:53Keen on disco/Infernal
14:34:26Julia/王力宏
14:38:58Missing You/John Waite
14:44:08Go /吳映潔
14:50:49I Do/APINK
14:54:48四百龍銀/張宇

15:04:10伊的身邊已經有別人/許富凱
15:07:47火柴天堂/曾沛慈
15:12:26Something 'Bout Love/David Archuleta
15:19:38You/Troye Sivan
15:23:37Better Believe/陳嘉唯
15:27:01誰是mvp/潘瑋柏
15:36:04奶奶/魏如萱
15:41:56壞女人/FT ISLAND
15:51:06都挺好的/江靜/張震嶽
15:54:43玻璃少年/kinKi Kids

16:04:03割愛/萬芳
16:07:36學著愛/周興哲
16:11:39Outerspace/ang Daniel
16:16:25Darkside/Alan Walker
16:19:54聽見/JS
16:24:11不解釋親吻/蕭亞軒
16:32:00離開我/陶晶瑩
16:37:38溫柔/五月天/孫燕姿
16:42:24One Love Wonderful World/平井堅
16:50:46Flower Show/花兒樂隊
16:54:13Come On Get Up/Janet Jackson

05/28星期五
14:03:56電視機/楊乃文
14:07:44Dramatic/棒球熊
14:12:00Time Is Ticking Out/The Cranberries
14:16:17繞/江美琪
14:20:35說不出的告別/林志炫
14:26:07Counting Stars/OneRepublic
14:34:00來追我男友吧/安心亞
14:37:39I Don't Wanna Go/Alan Walker/July
14:40:55北京一夜/陳昇/劉佳慧
14:48:43光/FTISLAND
14:53:43Waterfall/艾怡良

15:04:15我甲你/陳奕迅
15:07:49Drive/Breeze
15:12:07Not My Sister/李芷婷
15:17:01You Wanna Be Americano/Lou Bega
15:20:02Laugh Maniac/Rip Slyme
15:25:06早晨瑜伽/Matzka/小S
15:32:47唯一寫過的情書/周予天
15:36:50一天又一天/文明真
15:42:11馬德里不思議/蔡依林
15:51:12Hey Boy/Sia
15:54:22想自由/林宥嘉

16:03:56如果沒有你在身邊的時候/鄭中基
16:07:54Heaven/ROY KIM/金伊智
16:11:58Cheri/瑞瑪席丹
16:17:47LET IT GO/周興哲
16:21:48920/A-Lin/小宇-宋念宇
16:26:43Like I Would/ZAYN
16:33:36不愛了/李玖哲
16:38:21Dear, you/大塚 愛
16:44:25發燒/張惠妹
16:51:26超級偶像/八三夭
16:55:55Slave To The Rhythm/Michael Jackson

05/27星期四
14:03:58陽明山/周杰倫
14:06:40安全日更要小心/舞男
14:11:18健康歌/范曉萱/楊峻榮
14:15:32我的愛人/柏霖
14:19:15天空/蔡依林
14:23:43Lights/Ellie Goulding
14:30:49Green Light/Lorde
14:34:46黑鏡/Spark/Sydney
14:39:31寂寞公路/永邦
14:50:22BABY BABY/WINNER
14:55:10成為一個厲害的普通人/陳珊妮/呂士軒

15:04:17繁華攏是夢/盧廣仲
15:09:17Dream/李遐怡 (LEE HI)
15:13:58多一點關心/文慧如/賴淞鳳
15:20:53MONEY/九澤CP
15:24:15Not Myself Tonight/Christina Agulera
15:27:24Miss壞/周湯豪
15:36:07夢想陸地的魚/I Don't Like Mondays
15:39:37我是如此愛你/侯湘婷
15:45:07不能寂寞的人/理想混蛋
15:52:02Who's That/R. Kelly
15:55:51Lust/LEE

16:03:58大約在冬季/齊秦
16:07:43還是想念/家家
16:12:12water color/輝人
16:17:23Baby let's play house/Elvis Presley
16:20:19跆拳道/糯米糰
16:23:38廚餘戀人/9m88
16:31:08EVERYTHING/王力宏
16:36:00LOVE LOVE LOVE/堂本剛
16:42:259 Million/KIMBERLEY 陳芳語
16:49:46在一起嘛好不好/李榮浩
16:54:43Glory/Bastille

05/26星期三
14:04:03Spaghetti/梁詠琪
14:08:08珍珠奶茶/洸美
14:11:49美食王國/浩角翔起
14:16:1310,000 HOURS/鄭容和
14:18:55無所謂/蔡健雅
14:23:52Youngblood/5 Seconds Of Summer
14:30:57通勤打理/呂士軒
14:34:30Phresh Out The Runway/Rihanna
14:38:37暗示/李玟
14:46:22相愛吧/SUHO
14:50:08愛在/方大同
14:54:41Chillaxing/安心亞

15:04:08心內的話/陳雷
15:08:32I'm Here/梁多一
15:12:20給我你的手/弦子
15:17:39山山/大淵/Tipsy
15:20:44Body To Body/Samantha Mumba
15:24:42箇中強手/羅志祥
15:32:38All I Know So Far/P!nk
15:37:55屋頂/吳宗憲/溫嵐
15:43:12但願人長久/許書豪/徐若瑄
15:50:19Ordinary/THE CHARM PARK
15:54:11給我一個理由忘記/A-Lin

16:04:03糖果/藍心湄
16:09:29I'm in love/田亞霍
16:12:56Irresistible /The Corrs
16:18:11Feel This Moment/Pitbull/Christina Agulera
16:21:55叩卡遛/江靜/MC Hot Dog
16:25:31快樂為主/許慧欣
16:33:23我們都傻/楊丞琳
16:38:46只要一天/天上智喜/圭賢
16:44:09天亮以後說分手/獅子LION
16:51:15Everybody Woohoo/吳青峰/9m88
16:56:05Face 2 Face/Mandisa

05/25星期二
14:03:58冰箱/S.H.E
14:08:39就要醬玩/2moro
14:12:27去玩玩/Sweet Vacation
14:17:56因為是你/韋禮安
14:21:19愛瘋了/戴佩妮
14:25:36Back For You/One Direction
14:32:15ALL DAY/五堅情
14:35:42Move/Little Mix
14:40:02壞人/方炯鑌
14:48:31花香/林貞熙
14:53:41成名在望/五月天

15:04:17別人的/徐若瑄
15:09:02There Goes My Baby/Usher
15:13:39A級娛樂/張惠妹
15:18:58世界的盡頭/椎名林檎
15:22:28劈你的雷正在路上/王心凌
15:26:18老子說/吳克群
15:33:54I'm In love/Colde
15:37:03世界唯一的你/曹格
15:42:11咕嘰咕嘰/孫燕姿
15:48:11Something Just Like This/The Chainsmoker
15:52:34披星戴月的想你/告五人

16:03:58真永遠/劉德華
16:08:07無法入睡的夜/Crush/PUNCH
16:12:11啾咪啾咪/卓文萱
16:16:51Electric/Katy Perry
16:20:15站出來/Aden王淯騰/OZI
16:24:36專屬魔力/MP 魔幻力量/郭采潔
16:32:29不要愛我/莫文蔚
16:37:45Suddenly/Billy Ocean
16:41:50支線任務/HUSH
16:49:59幸福指南/品冠
16:54:14Love Rain/久保田利伸


05/24星期一
14:04:03Stay/Zedd/Alessia Cara
14:07:53同學會/MC HotDog/秦宇子
14:12:04Seek and Hide/女孩與機器人
14:17:4410,000 HOURS/鄭容和
14:21:07怪胎/鄭中基
14:25:10My Dear/Red Velvet
14:32:22我要給你/庾澄慶/吳莫愁
14:36:50When The Going Gets Tough/Boyzone
14:40:58各自安好/劉若英
14:47:00120分鐘的卡帶/羊毛與千葉花
14:51:23初戀粉色系/南拳媽媽
14:55:07懶人日記/蘇慧倫

15:04:08心所愛的人/蔡小虎
15:08:23Mas/Ricky Martin
15:12:33Boom Cha Cha La Ka/G.O.F.
15:19:02小雨/熊仔
15:23:17小鎮姑娘/陶吉吉
15:28:16D.D.D feat.Soulhead/倖田來未
15:36:54滿山的花/彭佳慧
15:41:44Heal The World/Michael Jackson
15:51:11鞋子特大號/周杰倫
15:55:24Wind Beneath Your Wings/M.C the MAX

16:04:03往日情/李玟
16:08:00Don't You Remember/Adele
16:11:48不安室的奈美惠/炎亞綸/吳卓源
16:17:02I Wanna Be With You/Mandy Moore
16:21:22只能想念你/蕭敬騰
16:26:04今晚沒極限/艾薇Ivy
16:32:40美麗的神話/孫楠/韓紅
16:37:27一起飆高音/黃明志/李佳薇
16:42:33Kiss Me/MONKEY MAJIK
16:49:39不安於世/白安
16:54:48One Last Kiss/宇多田光

05/21星期五
14:03:58上帝救救我/伍佰
14:08:13OK?OK!/蘇慧倫/任賢齊+羅百吉
14:12:09Holiday/DJ Antoine/AKon
14:16:44我看著鏡子裡的自己跳舞/奕超
14:22:01我多麼羨慕你/江美琪
14:27:20Hollywood/Michael Buble
14:35:09Stronger/elly Clarkson
14:38:49BOOGIE/吳建豪
14:43:10心的距離/陳奕迅
14:50:23人生大夢/趙傳
14:55:33Night stage/酷懶之味

15:04:17迺夜市/李愛綺
15:07:24 一切都是為了與你相遇/棉花糖
15:11:38Celebrity/N'sync
15:17:09幸福離開了我們/梁文音
15:21:50我真的受傷了/張學友
15:26:14A-OH!/SUPER JUNIOR
15:33:44路過人間/郁可唯
15:37:59麻雀/李榮浩
15:43:00I Don't Feel Like Dancing/Scissor Sisters
15:48:45LOVELY/倖田來未
15:55:22R&B Gir/頑童MJ116

16:03:56讓你媽媽扭一下/庾澄慶
16:08:02Waiting For Tonight/Jennifer Lopez
16:12:14Don't Stop The Music/Dream Girls
16:18:10值得被珍惜/周蕙
16:23:02Without You/CNBLUE
16:27:15情流感/盧學叡
16:34:50蘇菲阿姨/大淵
16:37:50Sweet Spot/Flo Rida
16:42:43遲到千年/蘇打綠
16:50:48夏天的風/元衛覺醒
16:55:17夏天的名字/嵐

05/20星期四
14:03:56水潑落地難收回/紀佳松
14:08:22The Distance/Mariah Carey
14:11:52愛的嫌疑人/關詩敏
14:16:04心跳/王力宏
14:20:44愛喲/PINK FUN
14:24:06Gee/少女時代
14:31:35沙發上的馬鈴薯/阿達
14:35:07Drop In The Ocean/OMI
14:38:55真想見到你/李玟
14:46:14Do It Again/濱崎步
14:52:38記得是最好的遺忘/張智成

15:04:15傷心酒店/江蕙/施文彬
15:08:19看見愛情/Bii畢書盡
15:12:05Work/Kelly Rowland
15:18:32To Be With You/Mr. Big
15:21:56日出!!/張惠妹
15:26:10根本不是我對手/持修
15:34:33CHAIN/Nulbarich
15:37:46我喜歡/梁靜茹
15:43:30千紙鶴/方大同
15:50:52summer dance/女孩與機器人
15:54:36Voice/Perfume

16:03:58一世情緣/姜育恆
16:08:40Breakaway/Celine Dion
16:13:23第四象限/九澤CP
16:19:25已讀我的已讀不回/林芯儀
16:23:37I Just Can't Wait/D'SOUND
16:31:44可惜你不在/戴愛玲
16:36:20Sleepless/Standing Egg
16:40:57不開燈俱樂部/YELLOW 黃宣
16:46:30Cupid/Daniel Powter
16:50:31獻上我的心/杜德偉
16:55:06CHEERIO/蔡佩軒

05/19星期三
14:04:05我是鬼/自由發揮
14:07:28Invisible/U2
14:11:19到處走一走/戴佩妮
14:16:25鹽酥雞/鹿洐人
14:20:43肉麻情歌/劉德華
14:24:59感覺來了嗎/AOA
14:32:29Bad blood/Taylor Swift
14:35:50糖衣/Matzka/Karencic
14:39:53別在傷口灑鹽/張惠妹
14:48:3Why/平井堅
14:55:10我們能不能不分手/花兒樂隊

15:04:10今生愛過的人/黃乙玲
15:09:37夠不著的你/安心亞
15:14:19New Beautiful/EPIK HIGH
15:19:39I Got You Dancing/Lady Sovereign
15:23:26癡情玫瑰花/Under Lover
15:33:01HIGHER POWER/Coldplay
15:37:02愛是這樣/艾怡良
15:41:40花的姿態/陳綺貞
15:48:00NO PAIN, NO GAIN/可苦可樂
15:54:20最佳新人/劉昊

16:04:03光陰的故事/羅大佑
16:07:38小心翻閱/孫盛希
16:12:13Always On My Mind/Pet Shop Boys
16:17:39Welcome to my world/曹格
16:20:46Holler/少女時代 TTS
16:23:57魯蛇/大嘴巴
16:31:45阿峰今天沒有來/萬芳
16:36:48Sorry/蘇永康
16:42:17Encore/清水翔太
16:51:14HEART TO HEART/James Blunt
16:54:38愛錯/李心潔

05/18星期二
14:03:56好好愛我/郭蘅祈
14:09:50Jambalaya/Lisa Ono
14:14:16創造青春/七月半
14:18:21Tag Me/KIMBERLEY 陳芳語
14:20:53Beautiful/Jessica Mauboy Beautiful
14:24:03以歌會舞/郭富城
14:29:49星星/順子
14:34:52一一 /田馥甄
14:39:36POWER/EXO
14:45:13Last Dance/伍佰& China Blue
14:49:44今夜就這樣/Aimyon 愛繆
14:54:34華麗進行曲/潘瑋柏

15:04:15無卡紙/孫淑媚/阿杜
15:09:08看見愛情/Bii畢書盡
15:13:01Closer/Ne-Yo 尼歐
15:18:42New Rules/Dua Lipa
15:22:09猴籠/蕭敬騰
15:26:45女人不壞/徐婕兒
15:34:27Phantom Pain/SUPER JINIOR-藝聲
15:38:00忘不了/陶吉吉
15:42:4240 days/艾雨帆
15:47:47I Say You Say I Love You/moumoon
15:53:01雖然很芭樂/謝和弦

16:03:58別愛我/鄭中基
16:08:31Let Me Go/Crush/少女時代太研
16:12:00兄弟/五月天
16:18:13看不見的戰爭/周湯豪
16:21:28Still Falling For You/Ellie Goulding
16:25:30嗨嗨人生/MC HotDog/張震嶽
16:33:01微光/曹楊
16:37:13愛喲/PINK FUN
16:41:09Last Day Alive/The Chainsmokers
16:46:42兜圈/林宥嘉
16:50:41我是你的Bling Bling/理想混蛋
16:54:17Great DJ/聽聽樂團

05/17星期一
14:04:40最高品質靜悄悄/9m88/leo王
14:08:01Love in this Club/Usher
14:12:15Solo/Saya
14:17:57可是我們呢/林凡
14:21:19像今天這樣的眼淚/許閣
14:25:03到死都要18歲/庾澄慶
14:33:24最佳新人/Ponzii劉昊
14:36:23One More Time/Daft Punk
14:42:47真愛無敵/許茹芸
14:49:18完美情人/鄧福如
14:53:33義大利麵/手越增田

15:04:10千里追/黃妃
15:08:07Chasing The Sun/The Wanted
15:11:22音樂快門/周興哲
15:18:44少了你該怎麼辦/曾寶儀
15:23:24想你了/光良
15:27:37Feel So Fine/少女時代-太妍
15:35:34踅夜市/拍謝少年/余佩真
15:39:57La La La/Naughty Boy
15:44:40又圓了的月亮/郭采潔
15:51:25Everything/小男孩樂團
15:55:28美好人生/Do As Infinity

16:04:03依靠/任賢齊
16:08:48You Are My Baby/倪安東/陳漢典
16:11:58911/Lady Gaga
16:16:46不醒之城/派偉俊
16:19:55Pump It/The Black Eyed Peas
16:23:28美杜莎/蔡依林
16:31:23Alright/SUPER JUNIOR
16:36:09Don't Worry About Me/瘦子E.SO
16:39:17愛你愛到/李玟
16:47:06Good Times, Bad Times/Love Psychedelico
16:51:41部落美男子/部落美男子
16:56:03Breathless/The Corrs

05/14/21星期五
14:04:57Circle of Life/獅子王音樂劇
14:09:25完美生活的悲劇/Tizzy Bac
14:16:52太自由/蕭閎仁
14:21:30靈魂伴侶/Monsta X-KiHyun
14:25:46溫室狂花/艾薇Ivy
14:32:57別弄花我的妝/關詩敏/Karencic
14:36:00All Time Low/The Wanted
14:40:03執迷不悔/王菲
14:47:17怪物/Ohashi Trio
14:53:58可樂戒指/梁靜茹

15:04:15有夠可惡/張涵雅
15:07:25You Make Me Feel So Young/Michael Buble
15:10:29不愛最大/黃小琥
15:16:31Things Things Things/吳卓源
15:20:17Run/One Republic
15:23:03心理遊戲/陳曉東
15:31:07有一點動心/張信哲/任素汐
15:34:59那天/藍又時
15:40:48抱緊我/BTS 防彈少年團
15:47:03中二中年/胖虎樂團
15:50:35絕妙好滋味/MONKEY MAJIK
15:54:34今天星期幾/莫文蔚

16:03:58愛與愁/伍思凱
16:08:37U R/少女時代-太妍
16:12:5888BARS/熊仔
16:18:07Selling/安溥
16:23:10Somewhere Only We Know/Keane
16:26:54那種人/Marz23
16:35:26真面目/蘇慧倫
16:39:21雪花/黃品源
16:44:58Let You Love Me/Rita Ora
16:51:11在我心裡最好的地方安置/棉花糖
16:54:33Saturday In The Park/Chicago

05/13星期四
14:04:29A Walk In The Park/安室奈美惠
14:09:58甩一甩/葛仲珊/比莉
14:13:42愛之船/馬念先
14:18:27我的愛人/柏霖
14:22:10黑白畫映/張學友
14:25:34You Belong With Me/Taylor Swift
14:33:20沒在怕的/小春Kenzy
14:36:23ROCK STEADY/All Saints
14:40:15一念之間/戴佩妮
14:46:23收心操/陳奕迅
14:49:05It had better be tonight/Michael Buble
14:52:55鞋貓夫人，Madame/Tizzy Bac

15:04:46沙漠玫瑰/浩子/亂彈阿翔
15:09:52亂了/徐懷鈺
15:13:59I Need To Know/Marc Anthony
15:20:45無人知曉的浪漫/潘裕文
15:24:44是什麼讓我遇見這樣的你/白安
15:34:46發光帶/Hanaregumi
15:40:11Hello Bye Bye/9m88
15:43:08荷里活/曹格
15:48:18Fight The Night/ONE OK ROCK
15:53:32因為你愛我/王若琳

16:03:58蔓延/許美靜
16:08:42戒掉你/梁心頤
16:12:16Something 'Bout Love/David Archuleta
16:18:57戀愛泡泡糖/愷樂
16:22:31Last Dance/(G)I-DLE
16:29:43鯨落/林采欣
16:33:55東風破/周杰倫
16:40:12Lights Shine Bright/TobyMac
16:48:57一切都是為了與你相遇/棉花糖
16:52:57HANABI/Mr.Children

05/12星期三
14:04:03Behind The Mask/Michael Jackson
14:08:56美麗的力量/小宇-宋念宇
14:12:47大師講/蕭亞軒
14:17:13或是一首歌/田馥甄
14:21:26呼吸/蔡健雅
14:26:18Say U Say ME/VIXX
14:33:53自躁浪漫/ 李英宏/李權哲
14:38:33Rockin To The Beat/The Black Eyed Peas
14:43:25缺席/鄭秀文
14:49:59Your song/Love Psychedelico
14:54:38心酸/林宥嘉

15:04:08非常女/黃妃
15:06:55別像個男人/劉家凱/Matzka
15:11:25Come As You Are/Santana
15:18:03話題/周蕙
15:22:41Miss You/Standing Egg
15:26:18愛情來找碴/By2
15:34:23Your Power/Billie Eilish
15:39:27零缺點/孫燕姿
15:43:03HBD/廖允杰/呂孝廷
15:48:48因為你/黃玠/女孩與機器人
15:53:49琉球之風/Orange Range

16:04:05一見鍾情/藍心湄
16:08:12Tonight/Westlife
16:12:46愛在新北綠生活/B.T.O.D
16:17:44差不多先生/MC HotDog熱狗
16:22:08你是我的Superman/李玟
16:26:11EVERYDAY/WINNER
16:33:25當我想念你/朱俐靜
16:37:57Photograph/Ed Sheeran
16:43:18醜人多作怪/告五人
16:50:35我常常想起你/棉花糖
16:53:51再見大哭的人！/Dreams Come True

05/11星期二
14:04:53冰的啦/吳克群/豬哥亮
14:08:41Hot Summer/f(x)
14:12:22看到你就黑皮/謝和弦
14:16:49我/岑寧兒
14:20:38忘了愛/范逸臣
14:25:34He wasn't/Avril Lavigne
14:32:12低電量 /呂士軒
14:35:40No Candle No Light/ZAYN /Nicki
14:39:30阿茲海默/萬芳
14:48:32將逝之愛/F.I.R.飛兒樂團
14:53:11Dr./安室奈美惠

15:05:16過來我家坐/玖壹壹
15:08:36精舞門/羅志祥
15:12:15I Love You/EXID
15:17:22連名帶姓/張惠妹
15:22:43因為是你/韋禮安
15:26:06If We Ever Meet Again/Timbaland/Katy Perry
15:35:13Don't/eAeon/RM
15:39:26茉莉花/梁靜茹
15:46:03Seh ah she/壞特
15:49:24Don't Wanna Know/Maroon 5
15:54:30Lucky-Unlucky/Hey! Say! JUMP

16:03:58消息/張宇
16:08:41這世界這麼多人
16:13:18Chasing The Sun/The Wanted
16:18:43偶爾偷懶/Lulu黃路梓茵
16:22:18好朋友My Best Friend/少女時代
16:25:35海芋戀/蕭敬騰
16:33:46任性/孫燕姿
16:37:27沒有傘的人/楊永聰
16:42:28One Last Kiss/宇多田光
16:49:27我們來拍張照/棉花糖
16:53:24Take It Easy/Eagles

05/10星期一
2:04:34我們都是一朵花/江美琪
2:08:16 I Love You Forever/Jewel
2:12:30情花開/張棟樑
2:16:21永恆這事不好說/彭佳慧
2:20:23給你/陳奕迅
2:25:02 GOOD DAY/IU
2:32:43結果咧/大嘴巴
2:37:01 The One/Kylie Minogue
2:41:54我愛你/李榮浩
2:49:39沒關係 沒關係/夏川里美
2:55:45金槍不倒/陳大天

3:04:06愛你無條件/黃乙玲
3:08:28直到抵達你的星球/Super Junior-圭賢
3:12:54溫室狂花/艾薇Ivy
3:19:48你想娶我嗎/袁詠琳
3:23:03 WuHa/潘瑋柏
3:26:49 Danza Kuduro/Don Lore V.
3:34:57茶葉蛋/小男孩樂團
3:39:02花季未了/張信哲
3:46:02 Jerk It Out/Caesars
3:50:30水母、流星/大塚 愛
3:56:24稱讚她的美/瘦子E.SO

4:04:05哀愁/辛曉琪
4:07:22因為你 所以我/五月天
4:11:58 Crazy Boy /AOA
4:17:07 Benz Booty/高爾宣/SOWUT
4:19:36玩愛之徒/蔡依林
4:23:00 Beautiful/Jessica Mauboy
4:29:41自然而然/Y.I.Y.O /YIYO
4:34:56小小的愛/周予天
4:39:45 Stoned/Dido
4:48:33親愛的朋友/棉花糖
4:51:01 Love Addict/中島美嘉

05/07星期五
14:07:55夢想起跑~鈴~鈴/卡莉怪妞
14:11:10獨家快樂/卓文萱
14:17:08月光下的影子/張語噥
14:20:25我難過/5566
14:25:03Bodies凡人歌/Robbie Williams
14:33:40How Long/Charlie Puth
14:36:55欠處理/J.Sheon
14:41:23心裡學/徐佳瑩
14:49:02孔泰光單戀之歌Love Song/BTOB-陸性才
14:53:09田納西恰恰/Tizzy Bac

15:04:10今仔日過了好就好/蘇明淵
15:08:15等等/Olivia Ong
15:12:112 Steps back/Craig David
15:18:36I Would/One Direction
15:21:55Shooting Star/Cross Gene
15:26:14戀愛應援團/安心亞
15:32:26紅豆/王菲
15:36:33回不去了/趙傳
15:42:02Try Your Emotion/w-inds.
15:48:29茶葉蛋/小男孩樂團
15:53:41Crash/Gwen Stefani

16:04:05愛我到今生/藍心湄
16:08:57鹽酥雞/鹿洐人
16:12:47Brielle/Sky Sailing
16:19:15不好說/張三李四
16:22:11Like I Do/Christina AguilLiera
16:26:50附心漢/周湯豪
16:35:03愛太遠/利綺
16:39:45時間等過誰 /吳克群
16:44:30Love Sweet/HEYNE
16:49:59主唱大人/季欣霈
16:54:06Sing/Travis

05/06星期四
14:04:47水手怕水/周杰倫
14:07:22不可思議的奇蹟最大獎/迷你早安
14:10:16痛快/S.H.E
14:15:35 說實話/彭佳慧
14:19:44一了百了/信樂團
14:24:02Never Really Over/Katy Perry
14:30:22倒數/鄧紫棋
14:34:03Side Effects/The Chainsmokers
14:37:47一千遍我愛妳/伊能靜
14:44:57梅西好朋友/盧廣仲
14:49:35Hug/臉紅的思春期
14:53:37It's You/田亞霍

15:04:08Darling 來跳舞/蕭煌奇
15:07:50我要你愛/美秀集團
15:11:29Sweet Dreams/Eurythmics
15:18:11大風吹/曾沛慈
15:22:25想你/孝琳
15:26:081413/黃鴻升
15:34:29旅路/藤井風
15:39:02往前飛/戴佩妮
15:44:24不說不/王詩安
15:49:45Trash Talk/蔡詩芸/瘦子
15:53:46Missing You/Rod Stewart

16:04:05愛的路上我和你/李麗芬
16:07:42Love Is Over/青山黛瑪
16:11:44Myself/原子邦妮
16:17:50說說話/張立昂
16:20:57最好的我/龔芝怡/房祖名
16:26:01Stars Align/R3HAB/蔡依林
16:33:00猴籠/蕭敬騰
16:37:30By The Way/Red Hot Chili Pepper
16:42:12永不結束的故事/阮丹青/許茹芸
16:49:16I PROMISE YOU/Wanna One
16:53:32迷途羔羊/兄弟本色

05/05星期三
14:04:55慎吾媽媽的早安搖滾/香取慎吾
14:07:54愛像什麼/Ella 陳嘉樺
14:11:1Hostage/Sia
14:16:04你的出現完整了我的世界/TANK
14:20:46至少還有你/林憶蓮
14:25:12If You Do/GOT7
14:33:15Turn Off The Light/Nelly Furtado
14:36:42死地活賴/謝震廷
14:42:02別再驚動愛情/張棟樑
14:49:03不必說哈囉/動力火車
14:53:44Get Together/Madonna

15:04:57紅帖仔/黃妃
15:09:11你不知道的事/王力宏
15:13:41Because Of You/Ne-Yo
15:20:29專屬密碼/黃義達
15:23:52How Do You Do!/Roxette
15:26:54會咬人的狗/Tizzy Bac
15:35:55Save Your Tears/The Weeknd/Arian Grunda
15:39:58她來聽我的演唱會/張學友
15:44:35指望/郁可唯
15:50:33water color/輝人
15:54:49兄妹/陳奕迅

16:03:57掌心/無印良品
16:08:11When This Rain Stops/WENDY
16:12:06為自己開心/慢慢說樂團
16:18:44Hello Beautiful/瘦子E.SO
16:22:00Baby/Clean Bandit
16:25:21GYM/自由發揮
16:33:27十二樓/莫文蔚
16:38:21窒息/李友廷
16:43:52只是愛著你/Do As Infinity
16:51:17環遊四季的愛/梁靜茹
16:55:04Love Really Hurts Without You/Billy Ocean

05/04星期二
14:04:33My Mama/Lou Bega
14:07:46MAMACITA/SUPER JUNIOR
14:11:09Party Crasher/安那
14:16:53說實話/彭佳慧
14:21:02最後還是會/熊天平
14:25:47Bigger Love/John Legend
14:32:41Yellow/Coldplay
14:37:04那些失眠的夜與難以忘懷的事/老王樂隊
14:42:05反派情人/李佳薇
14:48:15漢堡包/鄧福如
14:51:33戀愛漢堡/大塚 愛/AKKOGOR
14:54:54大俠艾吃漢堡包/艾成

15:04:08七點半的飛行機/PIA吳蓓雅
15:08:17喜歡/古巨基
15:12:32Need You Now/Lady Antebellum
15:18:32那曾經/邱鋒澤
15:22:45費洛蒙/蔡健雅
15:26:28Week End/星野 源
15:35:54What Type of X/Jessi
15:39:09當我們宅一塊/羅志祥
15:44:11這樣好嗎/韋禮安
15:49:52愛人呢/郭采潔
15:54:41Chasing Fire/Lauv

16:04:05這些日子以來/范怡文/張清芳
16:07:50看不見的傷最痛/蔣卓嘉
16:12:21Robot Boy/Linkin Park
16:18:37管他啦/Matzka
16:22:13izuwa 有/阿爆(阿仍仍)
16:25:07Out Of Our Heads/Take That
16:30:42心動/林曉培
16:34:17有一種悲傷/劉以豪
16:39:18因為有你/生物股長
16:47:13小時候的我們/周興哲
16:50:34DNA/BTS 防彈少年團
16:54:14講不聽/張韶涵

05/03星期一
14:04:53媽媽說/周渝民
14:08:13合拍/郭書瑤
14:11:13歡笑吧 Be Happy/少女時代
14:16:43不必說哈囉/動力火車
14:20:47The Reason/Hoobastank
14:24:35冷水澡/梁文音/胖虎樂團
14:32:16Shut The Phunk/The Black Eyed Peas
14:36:32Fat Boy Gang/大淵
14:40:12我們都孤單/JS
14:47:55食夢貘/大塚 愛
14:54:03哈尼哈尼/強辯樂團

15:04:17一人一半/旺福
15:07:11永遠在一起/許哲珮
15:10:37Wedding Dress/東方神起
15:18:56RED BALLOON/Charli XCX
15:22:21情逢敵手/蔡依林
15:25:17Turn up/周湯豪
15:32:05找自己/靈魂沙發
15:37:09失去/同恩
15:42:02Moment/2AM-李昶旻
15:48:25那我先/孫盛希/呂士軒
15:52:29桃子/陶晶瑩
15:55:14Crazy In Love/Emeli Sande

16:03:58故事/紅孩兒
16:07:37I Feel You/洪大光
16:11:26讓我想一想/陳綺貞
16:17:25Stupid In Love/Rihanna
16:21:21甘蔗掰掰/艾薇Ivy
16:24:37壞蛋特調/J.Sheon
16:32:45應該/楊乃文
16:39:56Miss you/M-Flo/Melody
16:48:27先知/田馥甄
16:53:20We’ll Be Together/Sting

#西門町 #街拍 #阿母
#歌單 #DJ荳子
#好事989BESTRADIO

hire me to cook and clean for you! I made oatmeal for breakfast and bolognese for lunch today, actually had so much fun :)) looking forward to the next time we hangout together!!

This has been really fun, if you enjoyed it, I would love to know!!

my jewellery are from Savagems, you can get them from
https://savagems.com/

:))

Thank you for watching :)

follow me on Instagram:
@tsouvlogs


xoxo
till next time!!

สายการผลิต 2022 Audi e-Tron GT production รถสปอร์ตซีดานพลังไฟฟ้า พละกำลังสูงสุด 640 แรงม้า ก่อนเปิดตัวในเมืองไทย

ก่อนที่จะมีการเปิดตัวในเมืองไทยอย่างเป็นทางการ ในอีกไม่กี่วันข้างหน้า เราขอพามาชมสายการผลิต Audi e-Tron GT รถสปอร์ตซีดานหรูพลังงานไฟฟ้า จากตระกูล e-Tron ซึ่งในต่างประเทศเพิ่งมีการเปิดตัวในวันที่ 9 กุมภาพันธ์ที่ผ่านมา โดยทำตลาดใน 2 รุ่นด้วยกันคือรุ่น e-Tron GT quattro และรุ่น RS e-tron GT

With an energized driving demonstration and a world premiere featuring high-caliber participants, Audi has presented its new electric spearhead – the Audi e-tron GT. In two events on the digital Day of Progress, the Four Rings showcased the highlights of this fully electric Gran Turismo: dynamic driving performance, emotional design, and sustainability.

“The e-tron GT is a stand-alone Gran Turismo, reinterpreted for the future. Its looks are a testament to premium automotive design.Bringing impressive driving performance, this is electro-mobility in the most emotive way. And with its sustainable concept, it takes a stand,” explains Markus Duesmann, CEO of AUDI AG. “Because it’s not just the drive concept that is sustainable. The entire production at our Böllinger Höfe site now has a carbon neutral energy balance.This sends an important signal – for the site, our workforce and the future viability of Audi.”

Audi also set a new benchmark with the digital world premiere, the Day of Progress. Two digital events presented the Audi e-tron GT: in the Sprint of Progress, the Formula E driver Lucas di Grassi and the sustainability entrepreneur and Formula 1 world champion Nico Rosberg demonstrated the dynamic driving performance of the Audi RS e-tron GT alongside the current Formula E racing car of the Four Rings, the Audi e-tron FE07. In a trip on the circuit of the Audi Driving Experience Center in Neuburg an der Donau, the spotlight was on the dynamic performance of the new model.

In the Celebration of Progress, the brand with the Four Rings introduced the Audi e-tron GT to the public for the first time. In the hour-long virtual show, Markus Duesmann and Hildegard Wortmann, Board Member for Sales and Marketing, together with further Audi protagonists such as Henrik Wenders, Senior Vice President for the Audi Brand, and Marc Lichte, Head of Design, presented the highlights of the new model.

A varied program emphasized the forward-looking attitude of the Four Rings brand. With reference to the importance of design, sustainability and performance, the actor and producer Tom Hardy, the designer Stella McCartney and Nico Rosberg added their personal insights. Themusical accompaniment to the unveiling of the car was performed by the US-American singer and songwriter Janelle Monáe, while Steven Gätjen as moderator guided the audience through the show.

The GREENTECH FESTIVAL and Audi, a founding partner of this platform for sustainability, together presented the GREEN FUTURE Award for the first time as part of the world premiere of the Audi e-tron GT. The prize, part of the festival’s GREEN AWARDS, is given to projects and persons that promote environmentally compatible urbanization and at the same time make an important contribution to improving the quality of life in urban infrastructure. The winner is the start-up Zencity, based in Tel Aviv, with an algorithm that collects and analyzes social media posts and local news from cities.

Both events are still available to be accessed online.

Quotes from the Celebration of Progress
“The Audi e-tron GT is the beginning of a new era for Audi. Our aim is to shape the future of electric premium mobility. Love of detail, maximum precision, and design that points the way to the future show how much passion we at Audi put into designing and making vehicles.”

Hildegard Wortmann, Board Member for Sales and Marketing, AUDI AG

“With the Audi e-tron GT we are putting the DNA of Audi on the road. The Gran Turismo superbly reflects our innovative strength and our pioneering spirit. For us it is already part of a line of icons of the brand, alongside the Audi TT and the Audi R8.”

Henrik Wenders, Senior Vice President, Audi Brand, AUDI AG

“For me, progress means creating something new. Something that no one has ever done before in this form. Designing a fully electric vehicle is like this: the entire design process has to be thought through anew.”

Marc Lichte, Head of Design, AUDI AG

“The Audi RS e-tron GT is a milestone in the development of electrified high-performance models.”

Lucas di Grassi, Formula E driver and entrepreneur

“Electric mobility is the future. Of course the path to the goal is a long one. It’s great to see that Audi is taking this path with determination.”

Nico Rosberg, sustainability entrepreneur and Formula 1 world champion

We are GETTING MARRIED !! 10.10.2020 will forever be remembered as the day we step into another exciting part of journey in life. The feeling was so overwhelming to us even though we have been together for 7 years. Hope you guys enjoy the video as we bring you along to our ROM. Would like to take the opportunity to thank our family and friends that took their time off to celebrate this occasion with us.

Hope you enjoy the video! Do like, comment & share.

Do follow us at:
Jo Yen IG: https://www.instagram.com/joyentan/
Joshua IG: https://www.instagram.com/joshualee93/
Our IG: https://www.instagram.com/alovelycouplelife/

#happyROM
#alovelycouplelife
#joyentan