=================================
「ついカッとなる」や「キレる」は英語で?
=================================
日本語の「カッとなる」や「キレる」は英語でどのように表現するのでしょうか?
--------------------------------------------------
Lose one's temper
--------------------------------------------------
「temper」は、人の「気分」や「冷静」などを意味する名詞で、それを失う(lose)ことによって、人がカチンとアタマに来る様子を表現しています。日本語の「冷静さを失う」と似たような使い方で、基本的に冷静さを失って腹を立てている様子を表す場合に用いられます。会話では「temper」を「it」に置き換え、「I lost it(激怒した)」と表現することもよくあります。
✔気分の起伏が激しい性格の人のことを「He/she has a temper.」もしくは、「He/she is temperamental.」と言う。一般的に些細なことでイライラする神経質なタイプを指す。
✔短気な性格なことは「short temper」と表現する。(例)「He has a short temper.(彼は短気だ)」
<例文>
I lost my temper and stormed out of the office.
(カッとなってオフィスから飛び出しました。)
I don't know what happened but he totally lost it. He suddenly started yelling at everyone.
(何が起こったのかよく分からないけど、彼は完全にキレてたよ。急にみんなに怒鳴り始めたんだ。)
You've got to do something about that temper. It's going to get you in serious trouble one day.
(その怒りっぽい性格をなんとかしないと。いつか大変なトラブルに遭うよ。)
〜会話例〜
A: I'm sorry I lost my temper yesterday. I just got caught up in the heat of the moment.
(昨日はカッとなってごめん。その場の感情にとらわれちゃって。)
B: You did say some pretty mean things. To be honest, I was really scared.
(結構ひどいことを口にしたよ。正直、本当に怖かった。)
--------------------------------------------------
Blow up
--------------------------------------------------
「Blow up」は「爆発する」や「破裂する」を意味することから、ネイティブの日常会話では、人の怒りが爆発する(=「キレる」)意味としてもよくこの表現を使います。イライラする出来事が積み重なり、それまでは辛抱し続けてきたことにも耐えられなくなり、怒りを一気に爆発させる状況を表します。
<例文>
He blew up and started kicking the chairs.
(彼はブチ切れて、椅子を蹴り始めました。)
My boss blew up last night and went off on all of us.
(昨晩、上司が激怒して私たちに怒りをぶつけてきました。)
〜会話例〜
A: What happened to your hand?
(手、どうしたの?)
B: I got into a fight with my girlfriend. She said some things that really ticked me off and I blew up. I was so angry that I hit the wall.
(実は昨日、彼女と喧嘩してさ。マジで腹立つこと言ってくるから、ブチ切れて、怒りのあまり壁を殴っちゃたんだ。)
ブログ記事URL:https://hapaeikaiwa.com/?p=16506
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
無料メルマガ『1日1フレーズ!生英語』配信中!
通勤・通学などのちょとした合間を利用して英語が学べるメルマガ『1日1フレーズ!生英語』を平日の毎朝6時に配信中!ただ単にフレーズを紹介しているだけではなく、音声を使った学習プロセスが組み込まれているので、メルマガを読むこと自体が学習方法!
https://hapaeikaiwa.com/mailmagazine/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
同時也有12部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過882的網紅Teh O - Y I W E N,也在其Youtube影片中提到,This song was inspired when I saw a post about Astronauts announcing their progress on their researches on Mars. If we were to talk about this topic 2...
「in one's hand」的推薦目錄:
- 關於in one's hand 在 Hapa Eikaiwa Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於in one's hand 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於in one's hand 在 香功堂主 Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於in one's hand 在 Teh O - Y I W E N Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於in one's hand 在 SARAH & JASON Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於in one's hand 在 haketu Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於in one's hand 在 In one's hands vs At one's hands vs On one's hands (Difference) 的評價
- 關於in one's hand 在 英文成語wash one's hand of sth是甚麼意思? 就是不管! You... 的評價
- 關於in one's hand 在 give a hand, show one's hand, force someone's hand etc 的評價
in one's hand 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的精選貼文
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”
in one's hand 在 香功堂主 Facebook 的最佳貼文
「很久以前,有一個小女孩,女孩有個影子,女孩和影子,共用一個靈魂,女孩吃東西,食物溫暖又美味,影子肚子餓,只能吃兔子,生冷又血腥。聖誕節時,女孩收到精美玩具,柔軟又舒服,影子的玩具,卻尖銳又冰冷,她伸手想玩,馬上劃破手指。女孩遇到白馬王子,墜入愛河,而影子遇到了亞伯拉罕,她愛不愛他根本不重要,他只是女孩那王子的影子。後來,女孩生下第一個孩子,一個漂亮的小女娃,而影子...卻生下一個小怪物,安柏拉天生愛笑。女孩生下第二個孩子,這次是個小男生,醫生得剖開她的肚子取出寶寶,影子比照辦理,但她只能...自己來,她為他取名布魯托,他天生愛火。所以呢,影子恨透了女孩,恨了好久好久,直到有天,影子終於明白,上天是在考驗她。」
.
一,《#我們》開場,阿蒂在遊樂園裡獲得一件麥可傑克遜的《顫慄》T-Shirt。她趁父親不注意時,走入一間鏡屋,看見一名穿著打扮與外貌跟她一模一樣的女孩。驚慌失措的阿蒂逃出鏡屋,失語好一段時日,透過舞蹈,抒發內心的恐懼,重新找回聲音,回到生活的常軌。許多年後,阿蒂結婚,並與丈夫育有兩個孩子,但她內心隱約感到不安,總覺得年幼時看見的女孩會再次出現在她的生命之中。
.
Netflix 已經上線 Jordan Peele 導演的《我們》,看過電影的朋友,可以讀一下麥可傑克遜的《顫慄》歌詞,會發現這首歌根本是「#深度解析」阿蒂和女孩的心情和她們所做的任何行動!
.
「It's Close To Midnight
午夜時分
And Something Evil's Lurking In The Dark
#魔鬼在暗處隱藏
Under The Moonlight
月光之下
You See A Sight That Almost Stops Your Heart
這幅景象幾乎能讓你心臟停止
.
You Try To Scream
想要尖叫
But Terror Takes The Sound Before You Make It
恐怖卻讓你聲帶失效
You Start To Freeze
渾身冰涼
As Horror Looks You Right Between The Eyes
#驚駭眼中閃光
You're Paralyzed
你完全癱瘓
.
You Hear The Door Slam
門猛地關上
And Realize There's Nowhere Left To Run
你意識到無處可逃
You Feel The Cold Hand
手腳冰涼
And Wonder If You'll Ever See The Sun
#不知能否得見明日朝陽
.
You Close Your Eyes
閉上眼睛
And Hope That This Is Just Imagination
希望一切只是幻想
But All The While
時時刻刻
You Hear The Creature Creepin' Up Behind
你都聽見鬼怪在偷偷來到身旁
You're Out Of Time
你來不及逃竄
.
They're Out To Get You,
#它們出來抓你
There's Demons Closing In On Every Side
惡靈四面逼近
They Will Possess You
它們將迷住你
Unless You Change The Number On Your Dial
除非你掉頭離去
Now Is The Time For You
現在正是時候
And I To Cuddle Close Together
讓我們緊擁一起
All Thru The Night
整個夜晚
I'll Save You From The Terror On The Screen,
我會把你從那些妖魔的手中救出
I'll Make You See
我要讓你看見
.
Cause This Is Thriller, Thriller Night
因為這是顫慄之夜
And No One's Gonna Save You
沒人能救你於
From The Beast About Strike
猛獸之口
You Know It's Thriller, Thriller Night
你看,這就是顫慄之夜
You're Fighting For Your Life
#要活命就要拼搏
Inside A Killer, Thriller Tonight
在這個陰森的顫慄之夜
.
Cause This Is Thriller, Thriller Night
因為這是顫慄之夜
There Ain't No Second Chance
與百眼妖魔的戰鬥
Against The Thing With Forty Eyes
#不是你死就是我亡
You Know It's Thriller, Thriller Night
你看,這就是顫慄之夜
You're Fighting For Your Life
要活命,就要拼搏
Inside Of Killer, Thriller Tonight
在這個陰森的顫慄之夜」
.
(#中文歌詞翻譯出處:https://reurl.cc/NXQWam)
.
二,《我們》也放了 Janelle Monáe 的「I like that」作為插曲,這首歌的 MV 可以看到 Janelle Monáe 分裂出多個自己,與電影的內容有著呼應。
.
三,「能在天空底下長大該有多麼幸福,可以感受陽光、清風、綠樹,你們卻覺得理所當然,我們也是活生生的人,有眼睛、牙齒、雙手、血肉,跟你們一模一樣。」
.
《逃出絕命鎮》談種族議題,《我們》講的是階級,地上與地下世界是階級,上流階層坐享一切,卻不懂得珍惜,底層群體的需求被忽視被剝削,他們本來習慣吞忍一切,直到「革命意識」的注入,給予他們希望,決定走上地面(抗爭),打破階級之間的界線。《我們》其實是融合了科幻與驚悚元素的《悲慘世界》。
.
四,《我們》也可視為人與自我的戰爭(我喜歡劇本的概念),為了獲得更好的人生(權勢、利益),我們都可能變得殘暴(無情),甚至可以謀殺一部份的自己(影子),來確保自己可以繼續維持階級上的優勢。
.
五,#Lupita_Nyongo 演得非常好,儘管阿蒂與女孩的外貌與舉止差異頗大,我們卻能在 Lupita Nyong'o 的表演細節中,看見兩個角色(靈魂)的微妙相似之處。奧斯卡獎沒有提名女主角,是我心目中的年度遺珠之一。
.
除了 Lupita Nyong'o 外,飾演兒女的兩位年輕演員(Shahadi Wright Joseph 和 Evan Alex )也演超好,兩種性格的反差都處理得很細膩。
.
六,女孩臨死前的口哨聲,超級淒涼,被奪走的人生,被奪去的幸福,只剩殘響。
.
七,無論是《逃出絕命鎮》或《我們》,我都很喜歡(而且都禁得起反覆重看),氣氛處理出色,故事概念也有很多想像空間,我會繼續期待 #Jordan_Peele 導演的日後發展!
.
延伸閱讀:《我們》:我變得好不像我自己!
https://mypaper.pchome.com.tw/hatsocks75/post/1377948191
in one's hand 在 Teh O - Y I W E N Youtube 的精選貼文
This song was inspired when I saw a post about Astronauts announcing their progress on their researches on Mars.
If we were to talk about this topic 20 years ago, I think this would sound insane and impossible for most of us. But in this present, they had achieved so much la...
Let's just take our progress day by day , step by step , because good things are never rushed. whatever it is that you're working on.
also, I wanna say that
We are three passionate people / musicians , who often gets overwhelmed by our own emotions , and our progress.
But we know that we are truly lucky to have each other,
genuinely proud of one's achievements,
and will always be there when comfort is needed.
It was a really fun collaboration woohoo!
thanks for listening :)
-
Composition by : YI WEN
Lyrics by: YI WEN
Produced by: YI WEN
Guitar arrangement by: CHUNG JIEN (CJ)
Harmonica arrangement by: YOKI
Mixing by: YI WEN
Mastering by: YI WEN
Artwork by: @threestonesletter
FIND us //
Instagram: https://instagram.com/yiwentyw (@yiwentyw)
Instagram: https://instagram.com/chungjienc (@chungjienc)
Instagram: https://instagram.com/yokayyyy (@yokayyyy)
Instagram: https://instagram.com/threestonesletters (@threestonesletters)
-
LYRICS //
Close your eyes , and count to ten
Whenever you’re about to lose yourself
in this bigger world.
Close your eyes , just take my hand
I promise you , it won’t be far
From Earth to Mars.
Can you feel the gravel
underneath your feet?
Striding across the surface
like you were made to be
It’s never a mystery,
But they’ll say it’s a make believe
So just be on your way.
Just know that you’re loved
And good things never come easily , yeah
It’s never a mystery,
But they’ll say it’s a make believe
So just be on your way .
Close your eyes , and count to ten
I promise you , it won’t be far
From Earth to Mars.
-
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/yiwentyw
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ab15e/ab15e6b4d750461eb7c29065ee2ed80ea8d95d04" alt="post-title"
in one's hand 在 SARAH & JASON Youtube 的最佳解答
We are so happy to announce that we're expecting another family member❤️
Damon 做哥哥啦☺️
Thank you so all so much for your well wishes and blessings.
多謝大家既msg,留言,多謝大家既愛戴
Things aren't easy right now, the world has been turned upside down by this pandemic.
Trying to find normality during these times just isn't impossible, but overcoming the different challenges is something we all must do.
疫情期間既生活一d都唔容易,但係大家每一個人都要做好自己,一齊努力抗疫!
The problems presented to us require us to make a massive team effort to stop the spread of the virus.
香港呢幾個月一直都做得唔錯,大家唔好咁快鬆懈,要繼續加油呀。
出街戴口罩,保持個人衛生。
可以既話留喺屋企。
The advice is the same all of the world.
If possible stay home, keep your distance even with friends and family who you don't live with.
If you have to go out, wear a mask, pay attention to one's personal hygiene (hand hygiene in particular).
Just look after yourself and in turn look after each other.
_______________________________________________________
Sarah
The past few months have given motherhood a new level of responsibility and made our family stronger.
Being blessed with another family member, we first have to be physically and mentally fit so we can continue to look after each other, protecting ourselves is of the utmost importance.
The Chans are so excited and staying positive, and at the same time hoping everyone can fight this Pandemic together as one! #wecandothis
#istayhomefor #ourlovedones
#medicalprofessionals #theelderly #YOU
#SandJProduction2020 #familyof4
#Damon哥哥 @chanjason_
__________________________
Jason
??? & ??
I’m so lucky I have the perfect family who give me the strength to do my best to protect them.
Now we are blessed with the extra family member who constantly reminds to stay vigilant, to stay positive in these difficult times.
We have to look after ourselves and look after each other!
And congratulations to Baby Damon who’s going to be a big brother!!!
Thanks to my lovely wife who’s not been out of the house much. I promise I’ll take you somewhere nice once we’ve gotten rid of this virus.
@RahRahSong #MotherOfTwo
#FatherOfTwo
#BossBaby #BossBaby2
#BabyDamon #BigBrotherDamon
_________________________________
Thank you to all our friends and family who are always so generous with your love.
A massive thanks to all the healthcare workers and other frontliners all over the world for keeping us safe.
Thx to all the people who’ve been working so hard to not let life come to a standstill: supermarket staff, bus drivers, taxi drivers, post office colleagues, everyone from behind the scenes who’ve been turning up to work everyday to ensure we can find some kind of normality in all this craziness.
#StayHome #StayHealthy
#StaySafe #IStayHomeFor
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/90b62/90b6223b0ee4307e43ec9674f8b877b5d135e860" alt="post-title"
in one's hand 在 haketu Youtube 的最佳貼文
Careless Whisper (George Michael) Guitar Solo (Fingerstyle)
I feel so unsure
As I take your hand and lead you to the dance floor
As the music dies, something in your eyes
Calls to mind the silver screen
And all its sad good-byes
I'm never gonna dance again
Guilty feet have got no rhythm
Though it's easy to pretend
I know you're not a fool
Should've known better than to cheat a friend
And waste the chance that I've been given
So I'm never gonna dance again
The way I danced with you
Time can never mend
The careless whispers of a good friend
To the heart and mind
Ignorance is kind
There's no comfort in the truth
Pain is all you'll find
I'm never gonna dance again
Guilty feet have got no rhythm
Though it's easy to pretend
I know you're not a fool
I should've known better than to cheat a friend
And waste the chance that I've been given
So I'm never gonna dance again
The way I danced with you
Never without your love
Tonight the music seems so loud
I wish that we could lose this crowd
Maybe it's better this way
We'd hurt each other with the things we'd want to say
We could have been so good together
We could have lived this dance forever
But no one's gonna dance with me
Please stay
And I'm never gonna dance again
Guilty feet have got no rhythm
Though it's easy to pretend
I know you're not a fool
Should've known better than to cheat a friend
And waste the chance that I've been given
So I'm never gonna dance again
The way I danced with you
Now that you're gone
(Now that you're gone) What I did's so wrong, so wrong
That you had to leave me alone
♫ Follow me:
☞ Website: http://haketuguitar.com/
☞ Fan Page: http://www.facebook.com/haketuguitar
☞ Instagram: @haketu
♫ Học guitar online cùng Haketu
☞ Guitar đệm hát cơ bản cùng Haketu (Edumall 100 bài giảng): https://goo.gl/wtt82z
☞ Khóa guitar cơ bản: https://goo.gl/jBipU6
☞ Khóa guitar nâng cao: https://goo.gl/F6t0Cm
☞ Fingerstyle (Cơ bản): https://goo.gl/zmi9hE
☞ Fingerstyle (Nâng cao): https://goo.gl/3F5VPD
☞ Đệm hát Guitar cùng những ca khúc tiếng Anh bất hủ: https://goo.gl/uwZSwL
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8bc17/8bc178034e437551bc7219b3dd47318ca30f6c2b" alt="post-title"
in one's hand 在 英文成語wash one's hand of sth是甚麼意思? 就是不管! You... 的推薦與評價
英文成語wash one's hand of sth是甚麼意思? 就是不管! You cannot play God then wash your hands of the things that you've created. ... <看更多>
in one's hand 在 give a hand, show one's hand, force someone's hand etc 的推薦與評價
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e008f/e008fbd019daa846e75789b1c00940a667481626" alt="影片讀取中"
Today I will teach you many popular English idioms with the word ' hand ', here they are:show one's handforce someone's handgive a handhave a ... ... <看更多>
in one's hand 在 In one's hands vs At one's hands vs On one's hands (Difference) 的推薦與評價
"In my hands" means that I am presently holding it. If I pick up a box, it is now in my hands. Normally you only use one hand to hold a ... ... <看更多>