關於 the school of life香港 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【國立臺灣大學109學年度畢業典禮 致詞代表 心理學系林世峰】
Student Address, National Taiwan University Commencement 2021
Shih-Feng Lin from the Department of Psychology

.
校長、各位貴賓、師長，親愛的家長、同學、畢業生，還有所有螢幕前的觀眾朋友，大家好！我是臺大畢業生代表，心理學系四年級的林世峰。

四年來，真的很難忘，我們同學一起在新生書院互加好友，在醉月湖找校鵝，還到舟山路上觀察大笨鳥的慢動作，又騎腳踏車到溫州街裝文青，到118巷當吃貨。多希望一切歲月靜好，但新冠肺炎疫情揮之不去，年輕生命殞落的悲劇突然到來，讓我們成為最迷惘的一屆，也是最獨特的一屆。

學校的活動臨時停辦，線上課程堆積如山，畢業舞會、椰林辦桌又被忍痛取消，最後甚至連實體畢業典禮和謝師宴也成為永遠的遺憾。我有朋友被迫放棄出國交換的機會，而我夢寐以求的芬蘭教育見習也無法成行。計畫被打亂、不安變常態，我們卻又將面臨更多挑戰。

一天，我在溫州街二手書店翻到詹姆斯．卡斯的一句話，震撼了我。這位哲學家將人類活動分為兩種遊戲，他說：「有限遊戲以取勝為目的，無限遊戲以延續遊戲為目的。」當下我驚覺，或許求學路上感到煎熬，就是因為我們被困在有限的遊戲中。有限的學習是一場短跑，只是一種手段，是為了勝過別人來證明自己，而拼命地刷新履歷、獲得標籤。

我回想起大三的一晚，我陪高三的學弟妹們為大考奮戰，原本想說幫忙解題而已，但最後他們卻對我說 :「學長，我讀書感覺好空、好累、好悶……」、「學長，我學這些到底為了什麼……」

是啊！為了考試而讀書、為了標籤而學習，不問意義與價值，讓我們陷入空虛、疲憊與痛苦。於是，我和一群來自超過二十個不同科系的夥伴創立了「臺大青鳥教育社」，有來自超過五所大學甚至香港、加拿大的大學生，一起走進的社區、偏鄉引導國高中生探索學習意義和自我價值，我們一起描繪活用所學、開展生涯的美好未來。

驀然回首，當初那麼想到芬蘭，不就是為了回台灣實現讓學習更有意義的理想嗎？疫情是一位無形的嚴師，教導我們在變動中珍惜彼此，在家園築夢踏實，更讓我們重新發現，學習是一場無限的壯遊，本身就是一種目的，是為了提升自己來造福他人，而自在地探索未知、創造價值。

經過師生共同努力，今天的臺大更重視心輔資源，「防疫一號」、「線上杜鵑花節」、「未來大學」，都讓我們這最迷惘的一屆，不僅成為了最獨特的一屆，更將蛻變為最堅韌、最覺醒的一屆。無論如何我們堅信，來到生命的必有意義，即使畢業了、即使停課了，臺大人都將繼續沉思、繼續學習，在人生的無限遊戲，繼續締造壯舉，讓傅鐘在心裡迴響起，永不止息！

一路上感謝師長、同學，感謝親友、爸爸媽媽及阿公阿嬤。感謝臺大砥礪我們脫胎換骨。期許自己並祝福各位同學，艱難時刻盡己所能，抱持無限思維活學活用，超越自我、同理他人，我們一起創造共好的故事、貢獻宇宙的精神！我是林世峰，畢業後我們一起勇敢！謝謝大家！

.
==============================

.
President Kuan, distinguished guests, professors, parents, graduates, and friends on the screen, Hi! I am the valedictorian on behalf of graduates. I am Lin, Shih-Feng from the Department of Psychology.

The past transient four years brought me lasting remembrance. We made friends with classmates at Orientation Camp, searched for geese at Drunken Moon Lake, watched languid birds, Malayan Night Heron, on Zhoushan Road, biked to Wenzhou Street like a hipster and took a bite at the Lane 118. Although I dream that serene days live on, Covid-19 pandemic and the tragic loss of young lives suddenly happened. Hence, we have become the most puzzled and unique graduating class of 2021.

The events on campus were abruptly suspended. Online courses were augmented. The graduation prom and the feast at Palm Boulevard were cancelled. Even the onsite graduation ceremony and the banquet for thanking professors have become impossible but eternal regrets. One of my friends was forced to relinquish the opportunity to exchange abroad. And I could not fulfill my internship program of which I dream in Finland. Facing the disruption of planning and uncertainty as normalcy, we meet myriad challenges.

One day, I read a sentence written by James Carse in a second-hand bookstore on Wenzhou Street. To my astonishment, the philosopher categorizes human activities as two kinds of games. He said that "a finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.” All of a sudden, I realized that my struggling study arises from the trap of finite game. The limited learning like a sprint aims to prove superiority as means that we spare no effort to renew resume and acquire labels.

Reflecting back on one evening in my junior year, I accompanied third graders of high school who strived to prepare university entrance exam. I thought I could help answer their questions but eventually they said to me that “I felt aimless, exhausted, and suffocated…＂“What is the purpose for learning indeed…?”

Right. Studying for exams and labels without inquiring into meaning and value could ensnare us within emptiness, exhaustion and pains. Therefore, I found NTU Avizure Education Club in partnership with peers from more than 20 departments. Students from over five universities including those from Hong Kong and Canada enter the community and guide middle and high schoolers to explore the meaning of learning and the value of self through application of what we have learned, leading to promising careers in the future.

While viewing the past and thinking of Finland, wasn’t it the ideal that I wish to accomplish after return to make learning more meaningful? The pandemic is an invisible stern teacher who teaches us to cherish each other in times of turmoil, to pursue dreams step by step in homeland, and to discover again. Learning is infinite grand journey embodied in a purpose, improving oneself to benefit others, exploring unknown, and creating value.

With joint endeavors of faculty and students, National Taiwan University today draws more attention to counseling resources. The Device of Epidemic Prevention No. 1, Azalea Festival online, and the University of Future project allow us as the most puzzled class to transform into the most unique and perseverant class with self-awareness. We firmly believe that anything that brings to the life gives meaning. Regardless of gradation and end of class, members of NTU would continue to consider and learn as well as proceed to accomplish in the infinite game of life. And the resonance of ringing the Full Bell in our mind never ceases.

I would like to extend my gratitude to professors, fellow classmates, family, friends, parents and grandparents in my path. Thank National Taiwan University for urging us to change. I expect each student and myself to transcend ourselves and to be compassionate toward others as active learners during trying times. We together create stories of common good and embrace the spirit to contribute to the universe. I am Lin, Shih-Feng. We are brave upon graduation. Thank you all.

詳見：
https://www.facebook.com/NTUCommencement/posts/2718183551805402

.
#臺灣大學 #畢業典禮 #NTUCommencement2021 #學生致詞代表 #臺大心理學系 #林世峰

【生死教育第三講】
講題 Title：預設醫療指示與預設照顧計劃 Advance Directive and Advance Care Planning

報名鏈接Registration Link: https://bit.ly/3tE9RgE

日期 Date：12/6/2021(Sat)
時間 Time：3:00-4:30pm
地點 Venue：沙田澤祥街12號香港中文大學鄭裕彤樓地下演講廳1A (LT1A)
Lecture Theatre 1A, Level 1, Cheng Yu Tung Building, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 12 Chak Cheung Street, Shatin, N.T.

講者 Speaker：陳裕麗教授 Prof Helen Chan / 鍾一諾教授 Prof Roger Chung
主持 Moderator：伍桂麟先生 Mr Pasu Ng

講座內容 Synopsis:
現今醫療科技發達，很多疾病均可治癒或受控制。當疾病到了末期，醫療科技有時只能提供維持生命治療，但延長死亡過程對病人可能沒有意義，甚至增加痛楚。面對這情況，病人、家屬和醫護人員可以商討是否中止對生活質素沒有幫助的維持生命治療，讓病人安詳離世。香港中文大學醫學院那打素護理學院副教授陳裕麗博士和香港中文大學公共衛生及基層醫療學院助理教授鍾一諾博士會在由中大公共衞生及基層醫療學院主辦的公眾「生死教育」四講系列的第三講和大家分享『預設醫療指示』 (Advance Directive)和『預設照顧計劃』（Advance Care Planning）的概念與應用。這兩種健康護理選擇不但可以免卻家屬決定病者死時所受到的困難和壓力，減少作出決定後感到矛盾和內疚的機會，亦體現對病者生命和意願的尊重。

Thanks to the advancement of medical technology, most diseases can be cured or subsided. However, there are times that medical technology could only prolong one’s life but could not cure the terminal illness. Facing such situation, patients, family members, and medical staff can discuss whether to withhold or withdraw from life-sustaining treatments that may not help improve patients’ quality of life so that they can die peacefully. Professor Helen Chan, Associate Professor from The Nethersole School of Nursing and Professor Roger Chung, Assistant Professor of the School of Public Health and Primary Care of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, will share with us the concepts and values behind Advance Directive and Advance Care Planning in the third public seminar of the four-lecture series on life and death education organized by the School of Public Health and Primary Care, CUHK. These two health care options aim not only to reduce the pressure faced by patients’ family when making end-of-life healthcare decision, but also show respect to patients’ will.

講者介紹：
Professor Helen Chan’s research interests focus on end-of-life care, gerontology as well as care ethics. She has conducted a number of research projects on promoting palliative and end-of-life care, especially advance care planning, among older adults and people with advanced progressive diseases.
陳裕麗教授的主要研究範疇集中在臨終護理、老年病學和護理倫理學上。她的研究項目包括推廣有關老人和晚期疾病患者的紓緩照顧和臨終護理服務，尤其是預設照顧計劃。

Professor Roger Chung’s research aims to empirically inquire into the social determinants of health inequalities, as well as aging‐related issues on multimorbidity and long‐term/end‐of‐life care, and to utilize such evidence to inform health services and policy, domestically and beyond.
鍾一諾教授的主要研究範疇為健康不平等的社會決定因素，與老年有關的多重疾病，和晚期與臨終護理政策，並運用研究成果為本地及國際公共衛生服務和政策提供意見。

生死教育 X 伍桂麟

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”

BILINGUAL: 中文 CHINESE 00:00｜英文 ENGLISH 38:19
Podcast每週四10點一集 ​👉https://arieltsai.lnk.to/ArielsWhisper_CH
YouTube每週日11點一集👉https://bit.ly/3ucWNiG

這集podcast 邀請我的加拿大好閨蜜Melina來聊聊我們的大學生涯，我們一起讀藥學系，點點滴滴滿滿回憶呀！Melina畢業後真的成為了藥師，而我成為了歌手，我常常在想，如果當初我沒有回台灣追求音樂夢想，我成為一名藥師的話，會是什麼樣的生活呢？
我們這集來聊聊唸藥學系和實際成為藥師的差別？藥師的生活是什麼樣的？當然還是忍不住離題聊了很多近況啦，好久沒跟姐妹catch up，請大家多多見諒，哈哈哈哈哈。
這應該是我第一次跟Melina用中文聊天，雖然中文是我們的母語，但第一次用中文聊天感覺好奇怪呢！但這集聊得開心又溫馨！
節目的最後，送上《小幸運》，這是Melina從以前就很喜歡的歌，送上我的版本，連結過去和現在的我～

《小幸運》歌曲收聽：https://youtu.be/vM-HWk7ZHvA


✨
Back in Canada for this past month for a much-needed getaway/break. Invited Melina, one of my best friends from pharmacy school, as we chatted about her life now as a full-time pharmacist, and what could have been like for me if I chose to stay in Vancouver to do pharmacy instead of moving back to Taiwan for music.

Please stay tuned for the rest of our fun chat in the next episode (EP13)!

**Song at the end “A Little Happiness” 小幸運：https://youtu.be/vM-HWk7ZHvA

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

秘密計畫終於公佈：我出書了！

✨📕新書《做好自己喜歡的事，就會閃閃發光》✨
Ariel 蔡佩軒的 3 步驟夢想實踐清單
【首刷限量隨書贈：夢想清單記事本】
■ STEP1 談夢想：沒有夢想很正常。不確定自己的夢想，更正常
■ STEP2 寫日記：最糟的都撐過去了。現在，不是最糟的時候
■ STEP3 列清單：堅持不是一個長跑，它是很多一個接一個的短跑
............................................... ​

📔博客來 (獨家限量親簽版 + 限量夢想記事本)👉https://reurl.cc/AgQQyY
📔博客來👉🏻https://reurl.cc/2bX4Va
📔誠品 (獨家封面版 + 限量夢想記事本)👉🏻https://reurl.cc/9ZMzxx
📔誠品 (獨家封面版)👉🏻https://reurl.cc/E2kKyn
📔MOMO (獨家限量海報版 + 限量夢想記事本)👉🏻https://reurl.cc/9Zjj1O
📔金石堂 (贈限量夢想記事本)👉🏻https://reurl.cc/Gd7kDD
📔墊腳石 (贈限量夢想記事本)👉🏻6/3網路及門市開賣
📔讀冊生活👉🏻https://reurl.cc/Agx1Lp
📔三民👉🏻https://reurl.cc/WE5509
...............................................
📔博客來電子書(首賣二週) ─ 新書上線7折、境好電子書展單書再88折、二書85折👉🏻https://reurl.cc/2bX4Va
...............................................
【海外購書】香港、馬來西亞、新加坡實體書店預計7月初可以到貨
📔新加坡、馬來西亞：大眾書店👉🏻https://ppt.cc/fK9FVx
📔香港：香港商務/三聯/中華/誠品/城邦
📔其他：博客來 (海外運送)👉🏻https://tinyurl.com/yegltbc5
📔PChome 全球購物 (103個國家)👉🏻https://global.pchome.com.tw/

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

🔔 SUBSCRIBE訂閱: http://bit.ly/ariel_youtube
📸INSTAGRAM: http://bit.ly/ariel_tsai_IG

▶︎Facebook: http://bit.ly/ariel_tsai_FB
▶︎YouTube副頻道: http://bit.ly/2VdVX3A
▶︎小魚家族: http://bit.ly/2j4GMKk
▶︎TikTok: http://vt.tiktok.com/JBNFxy
▶︎抖音: http://bit.ly/2Jb0hPL
▶︎微博: http://bit.ly/2mRyCab

【青春有你2021】歌曲收聽：https://arieltsai.lnk.to/TY2
Ariel首張個人實體專輯【ARIEL】：https://ArielTsai.lnk.to/ARIEL

#Ariel悄悄對你說 #ArielsWhisper #Ariel蔡佩軒

『虹』菅田将暉
ukulele : Ryo Natoyama(http://ryonatoyama.com)

【Please follow Ryo Natoyama】
❒Official WebSite
http://ryonatoyama.com
❒instagram
https://www.instagram.com/ryo_natoyama/
❒Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/natoyamaryo
❒Twitter
https://twitter.com/ryo_natoyama
❒contact
http://ryonatoyama.com/contact/


【名渡山 遼（なとやま りょう、Ryo Natoyama）】
ウクレレシーンに新たな風を呼び起こす、日本の若手プレイヤーの中でもナンバーワンの呼び声高いウクレレプレイヤー。
愛用のウクレレは全て、自身の手作り。またウクレレケース、ストラップも製作している。
1993年生まれ。小学校6年生の夏休みのハワイ旅行で家族がお土産に買ったウクレレを弾き始める。中学1年生からウクレレ作りを始める。14歳の頃にはブルース・シマブクロ、ジョディ・カミサトなどハワイのウクレレプレイヤーのオープニングアクトを務め、「天才ウクレレ少年」としてテレビにも取り上げられる。2010年、ジェイク・シマブクロのジャパンツアーにも出演。2015年には4thアルバム「UKULELE SPLASH!」、クリスマスアルバム「UKULELE Merry Christmas!」を発売。“ハワイのグラミー賞”と言われる「第３９回ナ・ホク・ハノハノ・アワード」最優秀インターナショナル・アルバム部門にダブルノミネートされ、「UKULELE SPLASH!」が日本人としては最年少で見事に受賞した。2016年7月「Made in Japan, To the World.」でメジャーデビュー。2017年、自身初となるフジロックフェスティバルにも出演を果たす。2019年4月より、TOKYO FM人気番組「ジェットストリーム」の公式エンディングテーマ「Mr.Lonely」のアレンジ、演奏を担当。同年8月には「ウクレレによる『ドラゴンクエスト』すぎやまこういち」をリリース。また、海外からも注目を浴び、これまでにアメリカ、イギリス、イタリア、オーストラリア、香港、タイ、台湾、中国、カナダでの公演を果たし、そのプレイが絶賛された。
世界に一つだけのウクレレで超絶な演奏テクニック、癒しのプレイを自在に奏でる。唯一無二の音色を生む、天才ウクレレプレイヤー。

Bringing a breath of fresh air to the Japanese Ukulele scene, Ryo Natoyama not only is an amazing Ukulele player but he also handcrafts all of his Ukuleles. Born in 1993, he started playing the Ukulele after his family bought him one when they went to Hawaii during his 6th grade summer vacation. By the time he was in middle school, he crafted his own Ukulele. When he was 14, he became an opening act for Bruce Shimabukuro, Jody Kamisato, and other Hawaiian artists and appeared on television broadcasts. He also appeared on Jake Shimabukuro’s Japan Tour and in 2015, he released his 4th album called, “UKULELE SPLASH” and also a Christmas album called, “UKULELE Merry Christmas!”. Both albums were nominated for the 39th Na Hoku Hanohano Awards (Hawaii’s equivalent to the Grammy Awards) and he became the youngest Japanese artist to win with “UKULELE SPLASH”. He made his major label debut with “Made in Japan, To the World.” In July 2016. He has continued to be active in the music scene and has also performed in The United States, England, Italy, Australia, Hong Kong, Thailand, Taiwan, China, and Canada.

【Ryo Natoyama original】
❒Bloom in your Heart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNQ_UUBll1A

❒Sweet Dreams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOu0rAQyZTI

❒Angel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh6ZRZ2ye_0

❒Way To Go!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8DkPB35pMU

❒Life is Beautiful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN4rdbqchDQ

❒Precious
https://youtu.be/7lS4f0xFuwg

【J-POPカヴァー】
❒ドライフラワー（優里）
https://youtu.be/llWHEuhpA_g

❒クリスマス・イブ（山下達郎）
https://youtu.be/FF0-rIdW3CA

❒LiSA 『炎』
https://youtu.be/zNcZODuKXwY

❒カントリー・ロード（Take Me Home, Country Roads）
https://youtu.be/TJdffoHyp3Y

❒糸（中島みゆき）
https://youtu.be/jWBF9bPFXKo

❒若者のすべて（フジファブリック）
https://youtu.be/-n3Sel1h2TU

❒裸の心（あいみょん）
https://youtu.be/yZow3P2MmBE

❒secret base ～君がくれたもの～（ZONE）
https://youtu.be/EY3-TrtvK64

❒打上花火 / DAOKO × 米津玄師（打ち上げ花火、下から見るか? 横から見るか?）
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ89UwpunP0&feature=youtu.be

❒香水（瑛人）
https://youtu.be/uAAM4490JQ8

❒Squall（福山雅治）
https://youtu.be/tQha38rYoWc

❒カブトムシ（aiko）
https://youtu.be/nwVtTBlAQ-8

❒2020応援ソング「パプリカ」(Foorin 米津玄師)
https://youtu.be/m8kC8Rwq4_E

❒紅蓮華/ LiSA（鬼滅の刃OP）
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVAAUlPrDwM

❒宿命（Official髭男dism）
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c4CacMb55k&t=15s

❒Everything(MISIA)
https://youtu.be/AV3AZr17qs8

❒HANABI（Mr.Children）
https://youtu.be/E2U3aIRaHWY

【ジブリウクレレカヴァー】
❒君をのせて（天空の城ラピュタ）
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OPh8mgypYo

❒いつも何度でも（千と千尋の神隠し）
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa7lanm422M

❒ふたたび（千と千尋の神隠し）
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auk_FpuOlbY

❒「となりのトトロ」メドレー
https://youtu.be/-u77tJlYmsY

【ディズニー】
❒Remember Me（リメンバー・ミー）
https://youtu.be/rjqXv3bhrqQ

❒Someday My Prince Will Come（いつか王子様が）
https://youtu.be/xhPnLLPWQVg

❒Beauty and the Beast（美女と野獣）
https://youtu.be/ieb8gyevokY

❒A Whole New World（Aladdin）
https://youtu.be/bfU_Kjg2ATI

【洋楽ウクレレカヴァー】
❒All I Want For Christmas Is You（Mariah Carey）
https://youtu.be/RxZ03oHF_cQ

❒I'm Yours (Jason Mraz)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np0irFcG9yQ

❒Always(Atlantic Starr)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Fwm8aSGXTw

❒Uptown Funk ft. Bruno Mars(Mark Ronson)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1UyQtPeNwU

❒Earth, Wind & Fire - September
https://youtu.be/-HxB7S3oI7g

❒Tears In Heaven（Eric Clapton）
https://youtu.be/Hwh9FeQJIHU

【ウクレレによるドラゴンクエスト】
❒序曲
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MPjmyvcoV4

❒この道わが旅
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whrA51bpUFc


#虹 #菅田将暉 #ukulele #ウクレレ ##ドラえもん #RyoNatoyama #名渡山遼

ドライフラワー（優里）
ukulele : Ryo Natoyama(http://ryonatoyama.com)

【Please follow Ryo Natoyama】
❒Official WebSite
http://ryonatoyama.com
❒instagram
https://www.instagram.com/ryo_natoyama/
❒Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/natoyamaryo
❒Twitter
https://twitter.com/ryo_natoyama
❒contact
http://ryonatoyama.com/contact/


【名渡山 遼（なとやま りょう、Ryo Natoyama）】
ウクレレシーンに新たな風を呼び起こす、日本の若手プレイヤーの中でもナンバーワンの呼び声高いウクレレプレイヤー。
愛用のウクレレは全て、自身の手作り。またウクレレケース、ストラップも製作している。
1993年生まれ。小学校6年生の夏休みのハワイ旅行で家族がお土産に買ったウクレレを弾き始める。中学1年生からウクレレ作りを始める。14歳の頃にはブルース・シマブクロ、ジョディ・カミサトなどハワイのウクレレプレイヤーのオープニングアクトを務め、「天才ウクレレ少年」としてテレビにも取り上げられる。2010年、ジェイク・シマブクロのジャパンツアーにも出演。2015年には4thアルバム「UKULELE SPLASH!」、クリスマスアルバム「UKULELE Merry Christmas!」を発売。“ハワイのグラミー賞”と言われる「第３９回ナ・ホク・ハノハノ・アワード」最優秀インターナショナル・アルバム部門にダブルノミネートされ、「UKULELE SPLASH!」が日本人としては最年少で見事に受賞した。2016年7月「Made in Japan, To the World.」でメジャーデビュー。2017年、自身初となるフジロックフェスティバルにも出演を果たす。2019年4月より、TOKYO FM人気番組「ジェットストリーム」の公式エンディングテーマ「Mr.Lonely」のアレンジ、演奏を担当。同年8月には「ウクレレによる『ドラゴンクエスト』すぎやまこういち」をリリース。また、海外からも注目を浴び、これまでにアメリカ、イギリス、イタリア、オーストラリア、香港、タイ、台湾、中国、カナダでの公演を果たし、そのプレイが絶賛された。
世界に一つだけのウクレレで超絶な演奏テクニック、癒しのプレイを自在に奏でる。唯一無二の音色を生む、天才ウクレレプレイヤー。

Bringing a breath of fresh air to the Japanese Ukulele scene, Ryo Natoyama not only is an amazing Ukulele player but he also handcrafts all of his Ukuleles. Born in 1993, he started playing the Ukulele after his family bought him one when they went to Hawaii during his 6th grade summer vacation. By the time he was in middle school, he crafted his own Ukulele. When he was 14, he became an opening act for Bruce Shimabukuro, Jody Kamisato, and other Hawaiian artists and appeared on television broadcasts. He also appeared on Jake Shimabukuro’s Japan Tour and in 2015, he released his 4th album called, “UKULELE SPLASH” and also a Christmas album called, “UKULELE Merry Christmas!”. Both albums were nominated for the 39th Na Hoku Hanohano Awards (Hawaii’s equivalent to the Grammy Awards) and he became the youngest Japanese artist to win with “UKULELE SPLASH”. He made his major label debut with “Made in Japan, To the World.” In July 2016. He has continued to be active in the music scene and has also performed in The United States, England, Italy, Australia, Hong Kong, Thailand, Taiwan, China, and Canada.

【Ryo Natoyama original】
❒Bloom in your Heart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNQ_UUBll1A

❒Sweet Dreams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOu0rAQyZTI

❒Angel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh6ZRZ2ye_0

❒Way To Go!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8DkPB35pMU

❒Life is Beautiful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN4rdbqchDQ

❒Precious
https://youtu.be/7lS4f0xFuwg

【J-POPカヴァー】
❒クリスマス・イブ（山下達郎）
https://youtu.be/FF0-rIdW3CA

❒LiSA 『炎』
https://youtu.be/zNcZODuKXwY

❒カントリー・ロード（Take Me Home, Country Roads）
https://youtu.be/TJdffoHyp3Y

❒糸（中島みゆき）
https://youtu.be/jWBF9bPFXKo

❒若者のすべて（フジファブリック）
https://youtu.be/-n3Sel1h2TU

❒裸の心（あいみょん）
https://youtu.be/yZow3P2MmBE

❒secret base ～君がくれたもの～（ZONE）
https://youtu.be/EY3-TrtvK64

❒打上花火 / DAOKO × 米津玄師（打ち上げ花火、下から見るか? 横から見るか?）
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ89UwpunP0&feature=youtu.be

❒香水（瑛人）
https://youtu.be/uAAM4490JQ8

❒Squall（福山雅治）
https://youtu.be/tQha38rYoWc

❒カブトムシ（aiko）
https://youtu.be/nwVtTBlAQ-8

❒2020応援ソング「パプリカ」(Foorin 米津玄師)
https://youtu.be/m8kC8Rwq4_E

❒紅蓮華/ LiSA（鬼滅の刃OP）
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVAAUlPrDwM

❒宿命（Official髭男dism）
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c4CacMb55k&t=15s

❒Everything(MISIA)
https://youtu.be/AV3AZr17qs8

❒HANABI（Mr.Children）
https://youtu.be/E2U3aIRaHWY

【ジブリウクレレカヴァー】
❒君をのせて（天空の城ラピュタ）
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OPh8mgypYo

❒いつも何度でも（千と千尋の神隠し）
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa7lanm422M

❒ふたたび（千と千尋の神隠し）
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auk_FpuOlbY

❒「となりのトトロ」メドレー
https://youtu.be/-u77tJlYmsY

【ディズニー】
❒Remember Me（リメンバー・ミー）
https://youtu.be/rjqXv3bhrqQ

❒Someday My Prince Will Come（いつか王子様が）
https://youtu.be/xhPnLLPWQVg

❒Beauty and the Beast（美女と野獣）
https://youtu.be/ieb8gyevokY

❒A Whole New World（Aladdin）
https://youtu.be/bfU_Kjg2ATI

【洋楽ウクレレカヴァー】
❒All I Want For Christmas Is You（Mariah Carey）
https://youtu.be/RxZ03oHF_cQ

❒I'm Yours (Jason Mraz)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np0irFcG9yQ

❒Always(Atlantic Starr)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Fwm8aSGXTw

❒Uptown Funk ft. Bruno Mars(Mark Ronson)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1UyQtPeNwU

❒Earth, Wind & Fire - September
https://youtu.be/-HxB7S3oI7g

❒Tears In Heaven（Eric Clapton）
https://youtu.be/Hwh9FeQJIHU

【ウクレレによるドラゴンクエスト】
❒序曲
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MPjmyvcoV4

❒この道わが旅
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whrA51bpUFc


#ドライフラワー #優里 #ukulele #ウクレレ #RyoNatoyama #名渡山遼