how to make him want you over text的八卦，PINTEREST和Yahoo名人娛樂都在討論

Eminem Killshot rap cover :v mới tập nên hơn tệ :< đừng chê nha

Eminem Killshot rap cover :v mới tập nên hơn tệ :< đừng chê nha :(
Lyrics bài này nè :3 :
You sound like a bitch, bitch
Shut the fuck up
When your fans become your haters
You done?
Fuck, your beard's weird
Alright
You yellin' at the mic, you weird beard
We doin' this once
Your beard's weird, why you yellin' at the mic?
Rihanna just hit me on a text
Last night I left hickeys on her neck
Wait, you just dissed me? I'm perplexed
Insult me in a line, compliment me on the next, damn
I'm really sorry you want me to have a heart attack
Was watchin' 8 Mile on my NordicTrack
Realized I forgot to call you back
Here's that autograph for your daughter, I wrote it on a Starter cap
Stan, Stan, son, listen, man, dad isn't mad
But how you gonna name yourself after a damn gun and have a man bun?
The giant's woke, eyes open, undeniable
Supplyin' smoke, got the fire stoked
Say you got me in a scope, but you grazed me
I say one call to Interscope and you're Swayze
Your reply got the crowd yelling, "Woo"
So before you die let's see who can out-petty who
With your corny lines (Slim you're old)
Ow, Kelly, ooh, but I'm 45 and I'm still outselling you
By 29 I had three albums that had blew
Now let's talk about somethin' I don't really do
Go in someone's daughter's mouth stealin' food
But you're a fuckin' mole hill, now I'ma make a mountain out of you, woo!
Ho, chill, actin' like you put the chrome barrel to my bone marrow
Gunner? Bitch, you ain't a bow and arrow
Say you'll run up on me like a phone bill, sprayin' lead
Playin' dead, that's the only time you hold still
Are you eating cereal, or oatmeal?
What the fuck's in the bowl, milk? Wheaties or Cheerios?
'Cause I'm takin' a shit in 'em, Kelly, I need reading material
Dictionary
Yo Slim, your last four albums sucked
Go back to Recovery, oh shoot, that was three albums ago
What do you know? Oops, know your facts before you come at me, lil' goof
Luxury, oh, you broke, bitch?
Yeah, I had enough money in '02
To burn it in front of you, ho
Younger me? No, you the whack me
It's funny, but so true
I'd rather be 80 year old me than 20 year old you
'Til I'm hitting old age, still can fill a whole page with a 10 year old's rage
Got more fans than you in your own city, lil' kiddy
Go play, feel like I'm babysitting Lil Tay
Got the Diddy okay so you spent your whole day
Shootin' a video just to fuckin' dig your own grave
Got you at your own wake, I'm the billy goat
You ain't never made a list next to no Biggie, no Jay
Next to Taylor Swift, and that Iggy ho, you about to really blow
Kelly, they'll be putting your name
Next to Ja, next to Benzino, die, motherfucker
Like the last motherfucker sayin' Hailey in vain
Alien brain, you Satanist (yeah)
My biggest flops are your greatest hits
The game's mine again and ain't nothin' changed but the locks
So before I slay this bitch, mwah, give Jade a kiss
Gotta wake up Labor Day to this (the fuck?)
Bein' rich-shamed by some prick usin' my name for clickbait
In a state of bliss 'cause I said his goddamn name
Now I gotta cock back, aim, yeah, bitch, pop champagne to this
It's your moment, this is it
As big as you're gonna get, so enjoy it
Had to give you a career to destroy it
Lethal injection, go to sleep six feet deep
I'll give you a B for the effort, but if I was three
Foot 11, you'd look up to me, and for the record
You would suck a dick to fuckin' be me for a second
Lick a ballsack to get on my channel
Give your life to be this solidified
This mothafuckin' shit is like Rambo when he's out of bullets
So what good is a fuckin' machine gun when it's out of ammo?
Had enough of this tatted-up mumble rapper
How the fuck can him and I battle?
He'll have to fuck Kim in my flannel
I'll give him my sandals
'Cause he knows long as I'm Shady, he's gon' have to live in my shadow
Exhausting, letting off on my offspring
Like a gun barrel, bitch, get off me
You dance around it like a sombrero, we can all see
You're fuckin' salty 'cause young Gerald's balls-deep inside of Halsey
Your red sweater, your black leather
You dress better, I rap better
That a death threat or a love letter?
Little white toothpick
Thinks it's over a pic, I just don't like you, prick
Thanks for dissing me
Now I had an excuse on the mic to write, "Not Alike"
But really, I don't care who's in the right
But you're losin' the fight you picked
Who else want it, Kells?
Attempt fails, Budden, L's
Fuckin' nails in these coffins as soft as Cottonelle
Killshot, I will not fail, I'm with the Doc still
But this idiot's boss pops pills and tells him he's got skills
But Kells, the day you put out a hit's the day Diddy admits
That he put the hit out that got Pac killed, ah
I'm sick of you bein' whack
And still usin' that mothafuckin' Auto-Tune, so let's talk about it (let's talk about it)
I'm sick of your mumble rap mouth
Need to get the cock up out it before we can even talk about it (talk about it)
I'm sick of your blonde hair and earrings
Just 'cause you look in the mirror and think you're Marshall Mathers (Marshall Mathers)
Don't mean you are, and you're not about it
So just leave my dick in your mouth, and keep my daughter out it
You fuckin', oh
And I'm just playin', Diddy, you know I love you

【玳瑚師父客人見證】《玄學。我的改變》
MY TRANSFORMATION WITH CHINESE METAPHYSICS
(English version below)

文 / 林恩宇 女士 Written by: Mdm Lim En Yu

常常會聽到有關風水玄學這東西，我對它們是一竅不通的，但心裡有半覺得這是種迷信的玩意，而且會覺得有必要相信一個你不認識的人，相信他們說你的命運會怎樣怎樣嗎？那可信度到底有多高？預先知道那麼多又應該怎樣呢？

一兩年前，自己遇到諸多不順心的事， 心情甚糟，迷失了自己，迷失了方向，生活過得一塌糊塗。偶然發現身邊的人蠻多都會做這類看家居風水、改名字、 看八字、流年運程的事情。心想生活既然糟透了，試一試也無妨。可我又很在意這準確性，真的不想隨便找個不知曉的師父。結果就在機緣巧合下，通過我姐的介紹，我有幸認識了玳瑚師父。

第一次正式接觸玄學是玳瑚師父爲我看八字的時候。我真的很震撼玳瑚師父能精准的說了無數有關我過去和現在生活的事情。比如說我會有婦女病，我有耳鳴，兩者都對了，因爲在遇見師父之前我做了身體檢查，發現子宮里有個瘤，然後耳朵也比較不靈敏。生活上僅僅的一些小習慣動態，比如我在Starbucks只會買綠茶，而不是咖啡，然後我偏愛吃辣和麵條，竟然也被發現了，當下給了師父一個掌聲鼓勵，瞬間覺得好厲害啊～！不論大小事情，說得簡直就像看透了你的人格，你的思緒，你的動向，讓你無所隱形，真的佩服師父的功力, 讓我深信玄學這奧妙的東西是真的。

另外師父也解說了，預先知道日後的事其實不必擔憂, 只要你跟隨命里的五行元素，用神，把它活化在生活當中，再正面迎對，它真的可以改變，你就可以少走許多冤枉路，從而光明在前，變得更好。於是我開始跟隨我的五行吃有利於自己的食物，穿屬於我的裝扮，瞭解自己好的一面，提點自己把壞的思緒，壞的個性改掉。生活經過師父的指引讓我突然驚醒，慢慢的走出了一個方向。

再來就是改名字。曾經有想過在我女兒出生時，找個師父爲她取個好名，可最終就只隨自己喜歡的字做爲女兒的名字，其實我心裡一直耿耿於懷。在遇到玳瑚師父爲我算八字的時候，師父也稍微從我和我女兒的名字中說出了一些準確的事，比如我的女兒在某歲之間會入院。事實是在師父說這的前幾個月她是真的生病入院了。

其實經過算八字，我對玳瑚師父在玄學這方面有精密深研的知識已是深信不疑的，所以很自然的讓玳瑚師父爲我母女取個符合我們八字的好名，然後跟著師父的指示換名，再把新名字運用在生活上。慢慢的從我女兒身上發現了很大的改變。像以前每次有人叫她時，她總不會回應, 我常會覺得那名字不符合她。新名字就真的點到她了，叫她時她就會回神看你，懂得回答，而且她還會把名字掛在嘴邊，朗朗上口，從不回應到開始說話唱歌都很多，會交流了。至於我自己，我隱隱約約覺得新名字正在糾正和改變著我的心情心態。心裡上有某種平靜的釋放，人變得比較放寬心，從而外在的整體氣色也變得比較有神。八字的運用和名字的改變，身邊的人感覺到我更有氣息，更有光澤和魅力了。

除了玄學風水，玳瑚師父也精通佛學。認識師父後多多少少也對佛學有了一點認識。很慶幸自己買到了師父出版的書 -《向善向上》，這是一本很值得擁有的書，讓我有機會接觸佛學的教誨。很感謝師父會經常在臉書發一些文章讓我們有機會閱讀，從而啓發提點自己必須多多益善。感謝師父的無私大愛，以佛法和玄學替人排解擔憂，讓我有幸成為收益者之一。也很感謝師父在我生活遇到忐忑不安的時候，願意接聽我的電話，給我一些指導。希望有緣人能向我一樣，遇見玳瑚師父。也希望和祝福師父能在佛學和玄學方面，更上一層樓，心想事成。阿彌陀佛。

[附上一张我与女儿的近照。女儿很喜欢写自己的名字呢。]

........................

I often hear of Feng Shui and Chinese Metaphysics, and due to my lack of knowledge in these subject matters, half of my heart dismisses it as superstition. Furthermore, I wonder if it is necessary to believe a complete stranger, who tells me how my fate will pan out. How much of it should we believe? What should we do even if we know so much in advance?

A couple of years ago, I encountered many obstacles in life and that seriously affected my emotions. I lost myself in the process and my life became a mess. It was by chance that I found out that many people around me had done home Feng Shui audits, change of their names, Bazi analysis, annual Luck Cycle analysis, etc. I thought since I had hit the lowest point in my life, there was no harm in giving it a try. But I was hesitant because I was particular about the accuracy of such readings, and did not want to look for any random practitioner unknown to me. A stroke of luck had me meeting Master Dai Hu through the recommendation of my sister.

My first actual experience with Chinese Metaphysics came in the Bazi Analysis session with Master Dai Hu. I was truly shocked that Master Dai Hu could accurately point out numerous details of my past and present. One of the 2 things pointed out correctly by him were the facts that I had women's health issues and also suffering from tinnitus. Prior to meeting Master Dai Hu, I went for a medical examination that revealed a tumour in my womb. And my hearing all along had not been well. Even my small living habits could not escape the eyes of Master Dai Hu. He pointed out that I only buy green tea and not coffe whenever I visit Starbucks, and that I have a penchant for spicy food and noodles. I couldn't help but gave him applause on the spot as a form of encouragement! He was incredible! Be it a small matter or a major issue, Master Dai Hu seemed to be able to see right through your character! My thoughts and plans have no place to hide in front of Master Dai Hu! I am in awe of Master Dai Hu's abilities, which led me to firmly believe that Chinese Metaphysics is indeed not a superstition.

Master Dai Hu also added, that there was no need to be worried about knowing the path ahead. As long as you follow the five elements and your favourable ones, and apply this knowledge in your daily life, you are well equipped to meet the challenges coming your way. He said my life will definitely change for the better, and I would not have to walk down so many wrong paths again, but only towards a brighter future. Therefore, I changed my daily living habits, employing my favourable elements in my diet, even my choice of dressing and make-up. I made an effort to understand my strengths and remind myself to eradicate the flaws in my thoughts and character. The patient guidance of Master Dai Hu was a sudden wake-up call for me, and with it, I gradually found a new direction in my life.

And then there is the name change. I had the thought to engage a Master to pen an auspicious name for my daughter when she was born, but I ended up giving her a name of my own whim and fancy. I felt uneasy because of that. When I met Master Dai Hu for my Bazi Analysis, he told me some brief info about my daughter based on her name. He was spot on. For example, he told me that my girl would be hospitalised before a certain age. Indeed a few months before Master Dai Hu's words, my daughter had already fell sick and warded in hospital.

After my Bazi analysis, I was already convinced by Master Dai Hu's deep and detailed knowledge in Chinese Metaphysics. Hence it was natural that I engaged him to pen a good Chinese name suitable for our Bazi, for both my daughter and myself. I followed his instructions to change my name and employed my new Chinese name in my daily life. The same goes for my girl, and not long after, I witnessed a major change in her. She used to be non-reactive whenever someone called her previous name, and I always felt that the old name was ill-suited. However, with the new name, she became responsive. She likes the name a lot and always say it out loud. She went from a non-responsive child to one that starts talking and singing more and becomes more sociable.

As for myself, I am beginning to feel the subtle influence of the new name on my emotions and mindset. I experience a release of tension and a sense of peace, and become more broad hearted. My overall appearance improved as well, looking much more spirited than before. With the new name and the newly gained knowledge of my own Bazi, the people around me noticed that I have became more lively, radiant and charming.

Feng Shui and Chinese Metaphysics aside, Master Dai Hu is also well-versed in the Dharma. Knowing him more or less gave me a bit of knowledge in Buddhism and its teachings. I thanked my lucky stars that I managed to buy his book Towards Betterment, Towards Kindness. This is a book worth buying as it gave me a chance to know the Dharma. I am thankful that Master Dai Hu often post articles on Facebook that inspire and remind me to do more good deeds, the more the merrier.

I am grateful for the selfless and encompassing love shown by Master Dai Hu, helping many people to resolve their woes, using Chinese Metaphysics and the Dharma. I am one of the fortunate ones. I am also thankful to Master Dai Hu, who answered my call and generously gave me advice over the phone when I was very uncertain in my life. I hope more people have the affinity to meet Master Dai Hu. I would like to wish Master Dai Hu good fortunes. May his spiritual cultivation and Metaphysics knowledge scale to the next level. May his wishes come true.

Amituofo.

(Enclosed is a recent picture of my daughter and I. She likes writing her own Chinese name a lot.)

**********

玳瑚師父春節開運系列活動（四）-
🎊🏮《元宵節風生水起茶會》🏮🎊
Lantern Festival Prosperity Tea Session

玳瑚師父即將在元宵佳節，繼續爲大家開示大環境和小環境整體的運勢。比如，哪個國家的經濟比較好，到哪一個國家旅行能採運，哪一個國家會發生災難，家庭裡的每一個成員，爸爸媽媽哥哥姐姐弟弟妹妹的狀況，甚至妳你自己的狀況，身體健康、事業、財富、投資、婚姻等等，會繼續在元宵節告訴有幸參與的人。

日期及時間：11 February 2017, Saturday, 8pm - 1030pm
地點：Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Marina Square

有意出席者，請發短訊聯絡吾的助理： +65 90212098，以便留位。為了表達個人誠意，玳瑚師父一概不接受透過別人代傳的簡訊報名。

簡訊中請附上：
1）個人中文姓名，
2）個人八字，

以便玳瑚師父能夠依照您的八字所需而指點您。

餐飲自費，除此以外，沒有額外收費。請趁早報名。一律歡迎有福有慧有心者！請記得攜帶紙和筆，及誠懇禮貌的學習態度。來拜年的報名者們，請記得帶一對年柑和紅包，向玳瑚師父拜年。

........................

When Spring comes around, on the Yuan Xiao Festival, Master Dai Hu would share his forecast on the micro and macro view of the world. This is his annual super bumper gift to his readers and fans.

Topics on the agenda include which countries will enjoy better prosperity, which countries are best for traveling, which countries are more prone natural disasters, the luck analysis of every family member, and even that of your own. You will get clarity on your own state of health, career, wealth, investment, relationship, etc, if you are among the fortunate participants.

Date & time: 11 February 2017, Saturday, 8pm - 1030pm
Venue: Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Marina Square

To reserve a slot, kindly send a text message personally to my assistant at +65 90212098. Requests sent on behalf of other people will not be accepted.

Information required:
1) Your Chinese name,
2) Your birth detail,
so that Master Dai Hu can advise you, based on your elemental needs.

I welcome people who are eager to learn and willing to put in the effort to turn life around for themselves and their loved ones. Do register early to avoid disappointment! Please remember to bring a pair of mandarin oranges and a red packet to pay your New Year call to Master Dai Hu.

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”