關於 ever after 2018 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

ref: https://levelup.gitconnected.com/why-full-time-programmers-are-decreasing-faster-than-ever-ad67d2697bbf

本篇文章是作者的個人發想文，其透過 StackOverflow's 的年度調查觀察到全職工程師的比例正在逐年下降，從 2019 年的 84.20% 到 2021 年的 80.68%。
相反的是今年的統計有高達 11.21％ 的人表達目前自己是 independent contractors/freelancers。

作者認為以下原因導致全職工程師的數量有愈來愈低
軟體工作有逐漸往 印度/孟加拉/巴基斯坦移動的趨勢
1. Indian Developer 與 US Developer 的薪水差距大概有 5-15 倍
2. 軟體開發是一個可以遠端學習與練習的技能，因此有愈來愈多的公司開出基於短期簽約的工作給印第安/孟加拉等地區的 freelancers。
3. 目前全美大概有 440 萬的工程師，不過估計印度 2023 年就會有高達 520 萬的工程師
4. 印度/南亞會有愈來愈多的簽約工程師

COVID 的全球影響
雖然 COVID 對全球的生態都產生了巨大改變，不過對於工程師來說的影響並沒有其他行業這麼巨大。
根據 Hackreator 的調查，其他行業大概有 20% 的人因為疫情而沒了工作，而工程師大概只有5%不到。
不過要注意的是因為疫情的變化，整個數位產生都有極具的改變，因此也有很多新的職缺因應產業變化而誕生

Freelancers 數量逐漸提高
從 StackOverflow 的調查來看， Freelancers 的數量從 2019 的 9.5% 提升到 2021 的 11.2%。
根據 Upwork's 2017年的調查報告，全美擁有世界最多高達 5800萬的 Freelancers，幾乎佔了全美工作人力的 36%。
Google 本身雇用的 Freelancers 數量甚至也已經超過其全職工作者的數量，大概佔了 54%。

公司想要節省成本。
大部分的公司都不太需要一個長期的全職工作者，很多專案都沒有後期維護與更新的需求，因此相對於雇用長期的全職工作者，雇用短期的 Freelancers 更能夠節省公司
成本。

作者最近才幫某個大公司玩了一個非常非常小的專案，完成該專案後每個月可以獲得 $500 美金的維護費用，作者表示該專案小的幾乎沒有什麼維護需求，就是一個被動收入而已。
文章作者也有分享 LinkedIn 於 2018 分享的文章
該文章中指出
1. 70% 的中小型企業都有與 Freelancers 共事過
2. 參與過的中小型企業中，有 83% 表明這些 Freelancers 的確對公司是有幫助的，而 81% 表明可能會繼續僱用來處理其他專案

預測
作者認為因應遠端工作這一年多的變化，後兩年應該會有愈來愈多的工程師轉為獨立工作者。過往招僱長期全職工作者的一個主要目的就是可以一群人一同於辦公室內激發出高效率的生產模式。
隨者遠端工作逐漸證明 Work From Home 也能夠帶來相對應的高產出，作者認為有不少公司可能會開始考慮雇用 Freelancers 來完成短期專案。

不過作者認為工程師們也不需要太擔心，只要掌握好自己的技能，其實這類型的趨勢不會影響太多。

【Press release: Decanter World Wine Awards 2021 winners revealed】
新聞稿：2021 年 Decanter 世界葡萄酒大獎的頂級獲獎者揭曉
（收到新聞稿，不過因為沒有時間翻譯，所以先附上原文與google翻譯，我在另找時間來修正）
From ‘yellow wine’ to California Cabernet Sauvignon, hotly anticipated medals announced in biggest ever Decanter World Wine Awards 7 JULY, LONDON: Full results from the Decanter World Wine Awards 2021 have been released today(7 July), revealing big wins for established wine regions but also many hidden gems from producers making exciting wines across the globe.
從“黃酒”到加州赤霞珠，備受期待的獎牌在有史以來規模最大的 Decanter 世界葡萄酒大獎中揭曉 7 月 7 日，倫敦：2021 年 Decanter 世界葡萄酒大獎的全部結果今天（7 月 7 日）公佈，揭示了已建立的葡萄酒產區的巨大勝利，但也揭示了來自全球生產令人興奮的葡萄酒的生產商的許多隱藏的寶石。
This year marks the biggest ever Decanter World Wine Awards(DWWA), which is already the world’s largest and most influential wine competition thanks to a rigorous judging process overseen by international experts.
今年是有史以來規模最大的Decanter World Wine Awards（DWWA），由於國際專家監督的嚴格評審過程，該獎項已經成為世界上規模最大、最具影響力的葡萄酒大賽。
More than 160 expert judges, including 44 Masters of Wine and 11 Master Sommeliers, tasted 18,094 wines from 56 countries at DWWA 2021, making it a record year for wines tasted.
160多位專家評委，包括44位葡萄酒大師和11位侍酒大師，在DWWA 2021上品嚐了來自56個國家的18,094款葡萄酒，創造了葡萄酒品嚐記錄的一年。
Judging took place over two weeks in Canary Wharf, London, with strict Covid-19 safety protocols in place.
評審在倫敦金絲雀碼頭進行了兩週多的時間，並製定了嚴格的 Covid-19 安全協議。
Only 50 wines, or 0.28% of those tasted, were awarded a prestigious Best in Show medal. There were also 179 Platinum and 635 Gold medals awarded, making up 0.99% and 3.51% respectively of the total wines tasted.
只有 50 種葡萄酒，即品嚐過的葡萄酒的 0.28%，獲得了享有盛譽的最佳展示獎。還頒發了 179 枚白金獎和 635 枚金牌，分別佔品嚐到的葡萄酒總數的 0.99% 和 3.51%。
Spain had a particularly strong year, winning nine Best in Show medals, compared to four last year.
西班牙今年表現尤為出色，贏得了 9 枚最佳表演獎牌，而去年為 4 枚。
Spanish wines also won 20 Platinum medals and 63 Golds this year.
西班牙葡萄酒今年還獲得了 20 枚白金獎牌和 63 枚金牌。
There were also plenty of brilliant medal-winning wines from other top wine-producing countries and regions, from California to many parts of France, Italy, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Chile and New Zealand.
還有許多來自其他頂級葡萄酒生產國家和地區的出色獲獎葡萄酒，從加利福尼亞到法國、意大利、澳大利亞、南非、阿根廷、智利和新西蘭的許多地區。
DWWA has a track record of shining a spotlight on exciting, under-the-radar wines all over the wine world, too – and 2021 proved no exception.
DWWA 也一直關注著葡萄酒世界中令人興奮、鮮為人知的葡萄酒——事實證明，2021 年也不例外。
DWWA 2021: A year of firsts
DWWA 2021：首創之年
DWWA 2021 included a first Best in Show medal for a ‘Vin Jaune’ – or ‘yellow wine’ – a speciality of the Jura region of eastern France. The winning wine was Domaine Berthet-Bondet, Château-Chalon 2013, made from 100% Savagnin.
DWWA 2021 包括法國東部侏羅地區特產“Vin Jaune”或“黃酒”的首個最佳展示獎。獲獎葡萄酒是 2013 年 Château-Chalon 酒莊 Berthet-Bondet，由 100% Savagnin 釀製。
DWWA 2021 judges included in their tasting notes, “If you’ve never tried Vin Jaune, you couldn’t do better than begin with this 2013.
DWWA 2021 評委在他們的品酒筆記中寫道：“如果您從未嘗試過 Vin Jaune，那麼從 2013 年開始，您將做得更好。
“Pale but emphatically gold, it has aromas which evoke nuts, wild mushrooms, umami, yeast and cream, but in which some lingering sweetness of fruit survives, too (Savagnin for Vin Jaune is picked very ripe).”
“淡而強烈的金色，它的香氣讓人聯想到堅果、野生蘑菇、鮮味、酵母和奶油，但也有一些揮之不去的水果甜味（用於 Vin Jaune 的 Savagnin 採摘得非常成熟）。”
There was also success in Switzerland for the Savagnin grape variety, not to be confused with the similarly named Sauvignon Blanc.
Savagnin 葡萄品種在瑞士也取得了成功，不要與同名的長相思混淆。
Wine cooperative St. Jodern Kellerei in the Valais region already farms some of Europe’s highest vineyards, and it reached the summit of DWWA in 2021 after its ‘Heida Barrique’ 2019 won a Best in Show medal.
瓦萊州地區的葡萄酒合作社 St. Jodern Kellerei 已經種植了一些歐洲最高的葡萄園，並在其 2019 年的“Heida Barrique”獲得最佳展示獎後於 2021 年登上了 DWWA 的頂峰。
Judges said in their notes on the wine, “Heida is the name used in the high Valais (or Wallis) for Savagnin, and our judges were very impressed by the range and expressive uniqueness of Swiss Savagnin this year.”
評委在酒評中說：“Heida 是高瓦萊州（或瓦利斯）用於 Savagnin 的名稱，我們的評委對今年瑞士 Savagnin 的範圍和表現力的獨特性印象深刻。”
They added, “This is a refreshingly aromatic yet full-flavoured wine, striking and singular: a horn sounding in the clear Alpine air.”
他們補充說：“這是一款清新芳香但味道濃郁的葡萄酒，引人注目且獨特：在清澈的阿爾卑斯山空氣中吹響號角。”
DWWA 2021 also saw a first Best in Show medal for France’s Savoie region, awarded to a 100%
Roussanne white wine from Domaine Charles Gonnet for the 2020 vintage.
來自Domaine Charles Gonnet 的2020 年份Roussanne 白葡萄酒。
Friuli in north-east Italy made its debut in the DWWA Best in Show winners’ list, thanks to Muzic winery’s Stare Brajde ‘Collio’ 2019 white wine.
得益於 Muzic 酒莊的 Stare Brajde ‘Collio’ 2019 白葡萄酒，意大利東北部的弗留利首次出現在 DWWA 最佳展示獎獲獎名單中。
There were also two Golds for Ukraine, the first time the country has struck Gold at DWWA.
烏克蘭也獲得了兩枚金牌，這是該國首次在 DWWA 上獲得金牌。
Sarah Jane Evans, Co-Chair at DWWA 2021, said of the results, “You know that this is something that's been through a really rigorous judging process. We're not playing at judging here. This is blind tasting.
DWWA 2021 聯合主席莎拉·簡·埃文斯 (Sarah Jane Evans) 談到結果時說：“你知道，這是經過非常嚴格的評審過程的事情。我們不是在這裡評判。這是盲品。
We have absolutely no idea what the wines are and we're tasting them not only in panels together where we have to each discuss and think about them deeply, but then they go up to Regional Chairs who are experts in those countries.”
我們完全不知道這些葡萄酒是什麼，我們不僅要一起在小組中品嚐它們，我們每個人都必須深入討論和思考它們，然後他們還會上到這些國家的專家區域主席那裡。”
She added, “It's a very, very rigorous process, but it highlights fabulous wines at the end of it.”
她補充說：“這是一個非常非常嚴格的過程，但它在最後突出了美妙的葡萄酒。”
Andrew Jefford, also a DWWA Co-Chair, said, “DWWA is the world's leading wine competition. I'm absolutely thrilled to take part in it every year because having tasted in a number of other competitions I know how well it's organised, how carefully everything is done. So if you get a medal from DWWA it really is worth having and everybody respects it internationally. We get entries from every corner of the wine world, so it is as it were the closest you can get to a universal benchmark.”
DWWA 聯合主席 Andrew Jefford 說：“DWWA 是世界領先的葡萄酒競賽。我非常高興每年都參加它，因為在參加過許多其他比賽后，我知道它組織得多麼好，一切都做得多麼仔細。因此，如果您從 DWWA 獲得獎牌，那確實值得擁有，而且每個人都在國際上尊重它。我們收到來自葡萄酒世界各個角落的參賽作品，因此它是您可以獲得的最接近通用基準的作品。”
More highlights from DWWA 2021
DWWA 2021 的更多亮點
Noteworthy highlights include two Best in Show medals for German Pinot Noir and Chardonnay, showcasing the country’s ability to make top wines with these classic Burgundian grape varieties. A 2011-vintage English sparkling wine also won a Best in Show medal.
值得注意的亮點包括德國黑比諾和霞多麗的兩枚最佳展示獎牌，展示了該國使用這些經典勃艮第葡萄品種釀造頂級葡萄酒的能力。 一款 2011 年份的英國起泡酒也獲得了最佳展示獎。
In terms of more unexpected wins, in North America, there was a Gold medal for a New York Sauvignon Blanc Sémillon blend produced in the North Fork of Long Island AVA, while in Canada Niagara Peninsula winery Hidden Bench won a Best in Show medal for its Felseck Vineyard Chardonnay 2018.
在更多出人意料的勝利方面，在北美，長島 AVA 北叉生產的紐約長相思賽美蓉混釀獲得了金牌，而在加拿大，尼亞加拉半島的酒廠 Hidden Bench 則獲得了最佳展示獎。 Felseck 葡萄園霞多麗 2018。
Russia won its second ever Platinum medal, while wines from Japan won two Platinums and four Gold medals.
俄羅斯獲得了有史以來第二枚白金獎，而日本的葡萄酒則獲得了兩枚白金獎和四枚金牌。
Classic styles from well-known areas also performed extremely well at DWWA 2021, demonstrating why they enjoy such vaunted reputations among wine lovers.
知名產區的經典款式在 DWWA 2021 上也表現異常出色，證明了它們為何在葡萄酒愛好者中享有如此吹噓的聲譽。
The list of Best in Show medals includes Champagne, California Cabernet Sauvignon and Pinot Noir, Barossa Valley Shiraz and Margaret River Chardonnay from Australia, Rioja Gran Reserva from the lauded 2004 vintage, South African Cabernet Sauvignon, Vinho Verde from Portugal and Malbec from Argentina.
最佳展示獎牌名單包括香檳、加州赤霞珠和黑比諾、澳大利亞的巴羅薩谷設拉子和瑪格麗特河霞多麗、來自備受讚譽的 2004 年份的里奧哈特級珍藏、南非赤霞珠、葡萄牙的維尼奧維德和阿根廷的馬爾貝克。
Excitement surrounding the Barolo 2016 vintage in Italy’s Piedmont region was given a further boost after Diego Morra’s ‘Monvigliero’ 2016 was awarded a Best in Show medal.
在迭戈·莫拉 (Diego Morra) 的 2016 年“蒙維列羅”(Monvigliero) 獲得最佳表演獎之後，圍繞意大利皮埃蒙特地區的巴羅洛 (Barolo) 2016 年份的興奮度進一步提升。
In total, Italy won seven Best in Show medals, also including Prosecco and Brunello di Montalcino DOCG wines, as well as a Timorasso dry white from Piedmont and a Vin Santo di Carmignano sweet wine from Tuscany.
意大利總共贏得了七項最佳展示獎牌，其中還包括 Prosecco 和 Brunello di Montalcino DOCG 葡萄酒，以及來自 Piedmont 的 Timorasso 幹白和來自托斯卡納的 Vin Santo di Carmignano 甜酒。
Some Best in Show awards went to lesser-known styles from top producer nations. New Zealand is renowned for Sauvignon Blanc but it was Tohu’s ‘Whenua Matua’ Chardonnay 2018 that won a Best in Show medal at DWWA 2021. Chile’s La Causa, Cinsault-País-Carignan 2019 from Itata Valley also received this top accolade.
一些最佳展示獎頒給了來自頂級製作國的鮮為人知的款式。 新西蘭以長相思而聞名，但 Tohu 的“Whenua Matua”霞多麗 2018 年在 DWWA 2021 上獲得了最佳展示獎。智利的 La Causa、Itata Valley 的 Cinsault-País-Carignan 2019 也獲得了這一最高榮譽。
Elsewhere, Greece narrowly beat its strong performance at last year’s competition. A Greek Assyrtiko white wine won a Best in Show medal, and the country received six Platinum and 16 Gold medals at DWWA 2021 overall.
在其他地方，希臘在去年的比賽中以微弱優勢擊敗其強勁表現。 一款希臘 Assyrtiko 白葡萄酒獲得了最佳展示獎，該國在 2021 年 DWWA 上獲得了 6 枚白金獎和 16 枚金牌。
ps.你可以閱讀Olivia Mason July 7, 2021的報導：https://reurl.cc/lRpXrd ；或到：https://awards.decanter.com/DWWA 上查看完整的獲獎者名單
（飲酒過量有礙身心健康，未成年請勿飲酒&酒後不開車）

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”

While Rex Tso is often hailed Hong Kong’s most famous super flyweight boxer, Tyson Ng has also caught the spotlight as an up-and-coming pugilist.

With 11 years in boxing, Ng harvested several Hong Kong Open Tournament championships even during his amateur days. Since turning professional in 2016, he has remained unbeatable after winning nine consecutive tournaments – the best performance ever made by a 150-pound-plus pugilist in Hong Kong history. The 31-year-old also has four championships under his belt, including the World Boxing Council ABCO Continental Middleweight Champion and the 2018 Thai Middleweight Champion, making him the first Hongkonger who has earned both titles.

https://hk.appledaily.com/feature/20210523/RKYDHZ3MJ5E5ZEPJFW3FVUQ44E/

影片:
【我是南丫島人】23歲仔獲cafe免費借位擺一人咖啡檔 $6,000租住350呎村屋：愛這裏互助關係 (果籽 Apple Daily) (https://youtu.be/XSugNPyaXFQ)
【香港蠔 足本版】流浮山白蠔收成要等三年半 天然生曬肥美金蠔日產僅50斤 即撈即食中環名人坊蜜餞金蠔 西貢六福酥炸生蠔 (果籽 Apple Daily) (https://youtu.be/Fw653R1aQ6s)
【這夜給惡人基一封信】大佬茅躉華日夜思念 回憶從8歲開始：兄弟有今生沒來世 (壹週刊 Next) (https://youtu.be/t06qjQbRIpY)
【太子餃子店】新移民唔怕蝕底自薦包餃子 粗重功夫一腳踢 老闆刮目相看邀開店：呢個女人唔係女人(飲食男女 Apple Daily) https://youtu.be/7CUTg7LXQ4M)
【娛樂人物】情願市民留家唔好出街聚餐 鄧一君兩麵舖執笠蝕200萬 (蘋果日報 Apple Daily) (https://youtu.be/e3agbTOdfoY)

果籽 ：http://as.appledaily.com
籽想旅行：http://travelseed.hk
健康蘋台： http://applehealth.com.hk
動物蘋台： http://applepetform.com

#果籽 #StayHome #WithMe #跟我一樣 #宅在家

A few years ago I spent 3 months learning Hungarian, took a very long break, and re-started learning Hungarian in October 2020. Here's my 8-month speaking progress update (after the 3 year break). I talk about why and how I learn Hungarian, how I balance my time, and in general how I learn languages. Press CC for English subtitles!

Csak 3 hónapig tanultam magyarul (2018), aztán hosszú szünetet tartottam. Most újraindítottam a magyar nyelvet, 2020 októberében. Itt van a 8 hónapos frissítésem.

Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
0:51 Why Hungarian? Miért magyarul?
2:47 How I study Hungarian - Hogyan tanulok magyarul
6:45 How many languages do I speak? Hány nyelven beszélek?
8:38 Managing time - Hogy osztom az időmet

Other Hungarian videos - A többi magyar videóm:
- First video ever lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFcFn1gkWrk
- Old study routine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4dlWZuqw7Y
- 2018 2 months update: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiTh8RVkF4w
- October 2020 update & notebook tour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLHRC2y5CP0

———
? CONNECT

Insta → https://www.instagram.com/lindiebotes/
Website → http://lindiebotes.com/
Twitter → https://twitter.com/lindiebee
FB → https://www.facebook.com/lindiebotesvideos/
Buy me a coffee→ https://ko-fi.com/lindiebotes#


✨GOODIES

$10 free italki credits (after first lesson) → https://go.italki.com/LindieBotes
Language discounts → http://lindiebotes.com/discounts
My favorite resources → https://lindiebotes.com/language-resources/
Merch → http://society6.com/lindiebotes


?ABOUT

Welcome to my channel! My name is Lindie and I share my love for languages through my polyglot progress and language learning tips here. South African by birth, I spent most of my life in France, Pakistan, the UAE and Japan. Now I work as a UI/UX designer in Singapore. I'm a Christian and strive to shine God’s light in all I do. May this channel inspire you to reach your language goals!

New here? Best videos → https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRCVN94KILKXGx45JKaVBSpPkrpXhrhRe
FAQ → https://lindiebotes.com/faq/


?EQUIPMENT

Camera → https://geni.us/CanonPowerShotG7
Mic → https://geni.us/RodeSmartLavMicr
Tripod → https://geni.us/ManfrottoTravel

———
Collabs & partnerships: hello@lindiebotes.com

This footage is from 2018 when I went on my dream trip to South-Korea.
A short but very memorable trip to Busan. Ever since I started thinking of planning my dream trip to Korea, I wanted to visit the beach in Busan because I always saw it in Korean dramas and I love water. I was very excited for this trip and I enjoyed every bit of it. The food was good and the views were incredible. I will visit Busan again when I get the chance!

After our Busan trip we went back to Seoul where we will be spending our remaining days in Korea. I have so much more fun footage coming your way soon. Hope you like my Korea vlogs so far and see you around in my next videos!

Until then, stay safe & healthy x Thuvan ?


N o t e
I didn't edit my Korea footage for 2 years because during the whole trip I had a HUGE breakout on my nose and it's just very unpleasant to look at tbh.. but since Korea is my dream destination and I really loved my time there I decided to still edit the footage and not care haha. I'm excited to share my Korea experience and I hope to be able to travel there soon again.

Ps. my hair and fashion style is a mess during this trip. Idk what I was thinking


K o r e a d i a r i e s :
Part 1: https://youtu.be/WLNz-3YraQA
Part 2: https://youtu.be/R-rraHg3UvM
Part 3: https://youtu.be/S6xRGCB6hd4
Part 4: https://youtu.be/3cy8ClZErMk
Part 5: https://youtu.be/zByzWzDipYA

#koreavlog #busan #beach
________________________________


Socials
‣ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thuvnn/
‣ Tiktok: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZSCmnWqQ/
‣ Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/thuvnn
‣ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/user/thuvnnp
‣ Pinterest: https://pin.it/7lxenr9

‣ Business inquiries: business@thuvanpham.co


________________________________


MUSIC:
‣ Music by ninjoi. - Thank You - https://thmatc.co/?l=2119B789
‣ Music by Terry Saige - Late Night Bar - https://thmatc.co/?l=CE412161

________________________________


☁︎ ☁︎ ☁︎
Name: Thuvan Pham
Content: Fashion, Beauty, Lifestyle, Travel
Camera (video specific): Sony A5100 + Iphone 6s Plus
Editing program: Final Cut Pro


________________________________

$$ Discount code:
THUVANPHAM for YesStyle https://ys.style/TXLxdCGZVdb


FTC: This video is not sponsored.