關於 canada health care ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

0929紐約時報

*【葉倫警告說，違反債務限額將帶來“災難性”後果】
美國財政部長葉倫再度發出警告，除非國會暫停或提高債務上限，否則聯邦政府可能將於 10 月 18 日用罄手頭資金，導致「歷史性的金融危機。」
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/business/economy/yellen-powell-senate.html

*【科技股下滑和債券收益率攀升，股市呈現5月以來最糟的一天】
標準普爾 500 指數週二下跌 2%，這是自 5 月以來最大單日跌幅，投資者面臨央行即將放緩大規模購買債券舉措。Forex.com 高級金融市場分析師Fiona Cincotta表示：大幅拋售凸顯了市場對美聯準會動作的緊張程度。
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/business/stock-market-today.html

*【英國出現汽油危機】
司機加油站外排長隊、超市貨架被搶空。由於脫歐和疫情造成勞動力短缺，運送燃料和物資的卡車司機大批減少，加油站油罐和超市庫存難以得到補充。隨著不安情緒蔓延，英國多地出現恐慌性搶購，危機進一步惡化，更引發對經濟衰退的擔憂。
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/world/europe/why-uk-fuel-shortage.html

*【加拿大將阿富汗難民重新安置目標提高一倍，達到4萬人】
加拿大外交部長表示，加拿大已將計畫接收的阿富汗難民數量增加了一倍，達到4萬人。這實現了總理杜魯多的競選承諾，其政黨在剛剛過去的選舉中贏得連任。
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/world/americas/canada-afghanistan-refugees.html

*【米利為打給中國的電話事件辯護】
美國最高級別軍官、參謀長聯席會議主席Mark A. Milley上將在國會作證，為他在川普政府最後幾個月的行為進行了辯護，堅稱他與中國軍方對等官員的兩次通話是其職責所在，且沒有繞開非軍方領導層。米利還警告稱，美軍撤出阿富汗後，基地組織和伊斯蘭國“非常有可能”在那裡重建。
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/09/28/us/senate-hearing#milley-trump-china-pelosi

*【大選失敗，德國基民盟陷入混亂】
基民盟在德國大選中失敗意味著什麼？這是基民盟自成立以來最糟的一次失利，梅克爾領導的保守黨正在目睹自己權力的流失。敗選曝露出該黨的艱難處境，也讓人們對保守主義運動的長期生存能力產生擔憂。而傳統上的左右翼政治分野已經陷入混亂，德國的未來仍然難以預測。
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/world/europe/germany-election-merkel.html

*【美國數千名紐約醫療工作者在截止日期前接種疫苗】
州官員說，隨著疫苗接種要求於週一全面生效，該州超過 650,000 名醫院和療養院工作人員中的 92% 已經接種了至少一劑疫苗。這比一周前有了顯著增加，當時該州 82% 的療養院工作人員和至少 84% 的醫院工作人員至少接受了一次劑量。
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/nyregion/vaccine-health-care-workers-mandate.html

*【Covid-19實時更新】
#Kaiser Family Foundation對疫苗態度的最新調查顯示，Delta變異是人們決定在今年夏天接種疫苗的主因，也是為什麼大多數人說他們在符合條件時會接種疫苗的原因。但調查也表明，近四分之三未接種疫苗的美國人，對加強劑的看法截然不同，稱施打加強劑表明疫苗沒有作用。
#輝瑞和BioNTech表示，已向美國監管機構提交了資料，証明他們的疫苗對5至11歲的兒童是安全有效的。這兩家公司還表示，將正式向美國、歐盟和其他國家提交申請，要求批准其疫苗對兒童投入使用。
#洛杉磯湖人隊球星LeBron James說，原本對施打疫苗存疑，但他坦言自己最後還是接受施打了疫苗。其他幾個備受關注的NBA球員拒絕在下個月NBA賽季開始前接種疫苗，讓所屬球隊很頭痛。
#CDC報告發現，第三劑疫苗的副作用與第二劑相似。在第三次接種疫苗後，79.4% 的接受者報告了注射部位的反應，如疼痛或腫脹，而第二次接種後這一比例為 77.6%。出現全身反應（如發燒或頭痛）的人數略少：74.1% 的人在第三劑後報告了這些副作用，而在第二劑後為 76.5%。
#在突破性Delta變異案例激增後，哈佛商學院將研究生課程轉移到網上。
#由於每日新增冠狀病毒病例數量下降，且疫苗已覆蓋近 60% 的人口，日本將於週四結束其緊急狀態措施，希望此舉有助於振興該國經濟。這是自 4 月 4 日以來日本第一次沒有任何地區處於緊急狀態。
#敘利亞衛生官員和援助組織說，敘利亞正在經歷冠狀病毒感染的大量激增，因為全國各地的醫院都發現自己沒有能力應對自大流行開始以來最嚴重的病例湧入。
#羅馬尼亞周二創下了迄今以來最高的單日確診病例，同一天，該國政府開始為33%已施種完畢的成年人提供加強劑。
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/09/28/world/covid-coronavirus-vaccine

*【孟晚舟回國引發對中國“人質外交”的擔憂】
兩名加拿大人和兩名美國人的獲准離開看起來像是拜登政府的政治決定，一些人對此提出批評，稱這將削弱美國的制裁和起訴等工具。印第安那州眾議員Jim Banks在寫給司法部長Merrick Garland的一封信中寫道：“將她放走，甚至連最輕微的懲戒都沒有，美國是在向任何可能的犯罪分子宣傳，我們對執行制裁並不認真。”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/us/politics/huawei-meng-wanzhou.html

*【日本新的首相候選人即將勝出】
日本執政黨自民黨今日將舉行總裁選，獲勝者將接任月底離任的菅義偉也將鎖定下一任首相之職。現任疫苗大臣河野太郎在民調中領先，但在自民黨內部並不受青睞。河野不墨守成規，一直在爭取公眾輿論支持，他在Twitter上發佈有趣的推文，有時親自回答疫苗問題。在社會議題上他持左傾立場，反對核電、支持同性婚姻。這都令他與影響力強大的黨內保守派高層格格不入。
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/world/asia/japan-taro-kono-prime-minister.html

*【恆大與中國曾攜手共進，如今卻被推向懸崖】
許家印曾是中國首富，也是中國經濟崛起的象徵。他通過瘋狂借貸和拉攏政商關係將恆大發展成為中國最多產的開發商，但北京如今不再容忍這種戰略。恆大的成功反映了中國從一個農業經濟體發展至一個擁抱資本主義的國家的轉型，它的掙扎也讓外界得以一瞥這個國家未來的金融新形勢。
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/business/china-evergrande-economy.html

*【從關塔那摩到阿爾巴尼亞，一名新疆維吾爾人流亡的15年】
9·11事件發生時，凱西姆正在經陸路由中國遷往土耳其的途中，他在阿富汗被賞金獵人抓住並交給了美國人，被美國軍方指控為與塔利班結盟的恐怖分子。在關塔那摩被關押四年後，他被無罪釋放並被送往阿爾巴尼亞。因為主張新疆獨立，凱西姆被中國認定為恐怖分子，一旦回國很可能再次入獄。他只好以“人道主義保護”身份在阿爾巴尼亞生活至今。
https://cn.nytimes.com/world/20210928/uyghurs-guantanamo-albania-china/

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”

《BBC》2/21

*緬甸首都內比都（Nay Pyi Taw）週末示威人群眾多，他們為一名年輕女子的葬禮，上街抗議軍事政府。

Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing在她20歲生日前被槍殺，她是自2/2日起抗議軍事政變還緬甸民主示威中，至少三人喪生的第一人。

成千上萬的人在大街上向她表示致敬，示威者用三指代表他們致敬的心意。

緬甸軍方於本月初推翻了民選政府。抗議者也要求釋放領導人翁山蘇姬和她的全國民主聯盟（NLD）黨的其他成員。

軍方指出去年全國民主聯盟的壓倒性選舉勝利是欺詐性的，但沒有提供明確證據。

Myanmar coup: Huge crowds mourn woman killed in protests https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-56144904

* 英國首相承諾，到7月底，所有英國成年人可以得到至少第一劑冠狀病毒疫苗並且接種完畢。

自2020年12月英國推出Covid-19疫苗以來，已有1,700萬人接種。
但是首相Boris Johnson說，他現在希望施打的速度“走得更遠，更快”。

他說，七月份全體成人施打完成的目標將使“弱勢群體”得到“更快”的保護，並將助英國進一步放寬全國的封鎖規則。

醫療機構NHS英格蘭地區首席執行官西蒙·史蒂文斯爵士（Simon Stevens）表示，“早期跡象”顯示疫苗的推出，已導致住院人數下降。
英國首相將在周一制定完整的“路線圖”，與高級部長舉行最後會議，討論如何緩解英格蘭的封鎖。

Covid vaccine: All UK adults to be offered jab by 31 July - PM https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56141867

* 澳洲總理莫里森（Scott Morrison）在全國準備本週開始接種疫苗時，先率先施打COVID 19冠狀病毒疫苗。
他在週日以電視現場直播轉播，公開注射，以增強人們對疫苗的信心。

疫苗正式於週一開始接種，預計下週將至少接種60,000劑。

星期六，一小群反疫苗接種示威者抗議發射。
澳大利亞總理斯科特·莫里森（Scott Morrison）在該國準備本週開始接種疫苗的同時，已接受了冠狀病毒疫苗。
週日對他的戳刺進行了電視轉播，以幫助增強人們對在澳大利亞各地推廣該疫苗的信心。
疫苗正式於週一開始接種，預計下週將至少接種60,000劑。

上星期六，一小群反疫苗接種示威者，曾上街抗議。

莫里森（Morrison）與一些前線衛生工作者和養老院居民一起在周日一起接受疫苗接種。澳洲的首席護士教授艾莉森·麥克米蘭教授和首席醫學官保羅·凱利教授也被加入施打範圍。

莫里森先生在接受疫苗接種之前說：“明天我們的疫苗接種計劃開始了，所以今天作為希望疫苗注射提高推動者，我們在這裡展現非常重要的觀點；安全性，重要性和意義，我們需要從那些最脆弱，處於前線醫護人員施打起。”

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has received the coronavirus vaccine as the country prepares to start inoculations this week.
His jab was televised on Sunday in order to help boost confidence in the vaccine rollout across Australia.
Vaccinations officially begin on Monday and at least 60,000 doses are expected to be administered next week.
On Saturday, small crowds of anti-vaccination demonstrators gathered to protest against the launch.
Mr Morrison was part of a small group of people vaccinated on Sunday along with some frontline health workers and care home residents. Australia's chief nurse Professor Alison McMillan and Chief Medical Officer Professor Paul Kelly were also immunised.
Speaking at ahead of his vaccination, Mr Morrison said: "Tomorrow our vaccination programme starts, so as a curtain raiser today we're here making some very important points; that it's safe, that it's important, and we need to start with those who are most vulnerable and are on the front line."

Australian PM is vaccinated as rollout begins https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-56143277

* 俄羅斯反對派領導人納瓦尼（Alexei Navalny）因違反監禁條款被判入獄，今天法院判決上訴失敗。

納瓦尼上個月從德國返回俄羅斯後被拘留，他在柏林遭遇了一次致命致命的神經毒劑襲擊。他將這次卑鄙襲擊歸咎於俄羅斯總統普丁（Vladimir Putin）。克里姆林宮否認中毒。

Alexei Navalny: Putin critic loses appeal against jailing https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56137020

* 一架波音飛機的引擎之一，起飛失敗後，在丹佛附近的居民區散佈成碎屑。
波音777飛機上搭有231名乘客和10名機組人員，最後奇蹟安全返回並降落在丹佛機場。沒有人有受傷報告。
布魯姆菲爾德（Broomfield）鎮的警察在房屋前花園張貼了一張看起來像是引擎機殼前部的照片。
此飛機起飛後不久，機上乘客描述了一次“大爆炸”。美國聯邦航空局（FAA）表示，一架飛往檀香山的聯合航空飛機328航班的右引擎發生故障。
一位乘客告訴美聯社，當大聲爆炸時，飛行員向他們發出了緊急通知。

US plane scatters engine debris over Denver homes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56141673

* 印度喜馬拉雅山一個村莊，幾代居民一直相信核裝置被掩埋於高聳的山脈中雪和岩石下。因此，當Raini在2月初遭受大洪水襲擊時，村民們驚慌失措，謠言說這些設備已經“爆炸”並引發了洪水。

科學家認為，實際上，冰川破裂是造成北阿坎德邦喜馬拉雅州洪災的原因，當地有50多人死亡。

但是如果告訴雷尼人-一個有250戶家庭的農業山區村莊-許多人不太相信您。

Raini負責人桑格拉姆·辛格·拉瓦特（Sangram Singh Rawat）告訴我：“我們認為這些設備可能發揮了作用。冰川如何在冬天突然破裂？我們認為政府應該調查並找到這些設備。”

他們擔心的核心是有關高空間諜活動的一個有趣故事，其中涉及一些世界頂級登山者，運行電子間諜系統的放射性物質以及幽靈。

這是一個關於美國如何在1960年代與印度合作在喜馬拉雅山脈上安裝核動力監測裝置，以監視中國的核試驗和導彈射擊的故事。中國在1964年引爆了第一枚核裝置。

“冷戰妄想症已達到頂峰。沒有計劃太過奇，沒有太大的投資，也沒有不合理的手段，”美國《 Rock and Ice》雜誌的特約編輯Pete Takeda指出。

Did nuclear spy devices in the Himalayas trigger India floods? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-56102459

Hương Thị Cosmetics

Sữa Rửa Mặt Giữ Ẩm BONG BÓNG
Moisturizing BUBBLE Facial Wash

Giá khuyến mãi:
480,000 VNĐ (Việt Nam)
$26.00 USD (USA)

---------

Số điện thoại đặt hàng:

TỔNG ĐẠI LÝ HƯƠNG THỊ COSMETICS
VIỆT NAM
Điện thoại (số miễn phí): 1-800-545-484

MỸ - HƯƠNG THỊ USA -
ĐẠI LÝ PV HEALTH & BEAUTY
Toàn nước Mỹ và Canada
Điện thoại: +1 714-260-2267

MỸ - HƯƠNG WELLNESS
Địa chỉ: 5421W 1st Street Unit #4 (khu Quán Hương), Santa Ana, CA 92703
Điện thoại: +1 714-512-6869

ĐÀI LOAN - ĐẠI LÝ KIM NGỌC
Điện thoại: 091 303 2776

HÀN QUỐC - ĐẠI LÝ TRẦN PHƯƠNG LIÊN
Cheonan, Korea
Điện thoại: 0104 889 8388

HÀN QUỐC - ĐẠI LÝ HUỲNH NHƯ
Korea
Điện thoại: 0107 630 5158

ÚC - ĐẠI LÝ LÂM THỊ BÍCH HẠNH
Địa chỉ: 26 Magdalena Crescent,Paralowie , 5108 SA
Điện thoại: 047 866 8525 - 088 280 6893

Danh sách các đại lý Hương Thị:
https://huongthicosmetics.com/danh-sach-dai-ly-dia-phuong.html

Website: huongthicosmetics.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/huongthicosmetics/

Been feeling better for a while now. So I figured it's time I share some of my knowledge and experience about depression with you! :)

RESOURCES:
Malaysia Suicide Hotlines: http://www.suicide.org/hotlines/inter...
Canada: 1-833-456-4566
USA: 1-800-273-8255
Testimonials and What to Do: https://relate.com.my/

#Depression #DepressionSucks #MentalHealth

///////////////////////////////////////

WATCH MY OTHER VIDEOS:

?What Happens When You Stop Taking Antidepressants - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6eTF...

⭐️ How to NOT Care About What People Think of You - https://youtu.be/lwXafVAtKq8

? MY SSRI (ANTIDEPRESSANTS) EXPERIENCE - https://youtu.be/DcFcTHIvCm0

? Yaz Birth Control for Acne and PMS - https://youtu.be/PYHKd2Qvn0A

///////////////////////////////////////

SUPPORT MY WORK:

☕️ Buy Me a Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/wendyvaz

///////////////////////////////////////

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:

? Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/wendyvazzy/

? Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/livingvazzy/

? Blog: http://livingvazzy.com/

///////////////////////////////////////

I had been on antidepressants for one year now, and I thought it'll be nice to share for those of you who are considering or are curious about it.

The two drugs that I took are Sertraline and Escitalopram. They're both SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors), just different kinds of it. They are prescription drugs from the Psychiatry department.

RESOURCES:
Malaysia Suicide Hotlines: http://www.suicide.org/hotlines/inter...
Canada: 1-833-456-4566
USA: 1-800-273-8255
Testimonials and What to Do: https://relate.com.my/

#Depression #MentalHealth #SSRI

///////////////////////////////////////

WATCH MY OTHER VIDEOS:

?What Happens When You Stop Taking Antidepressants - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6eTF...

⭐️ How to NOT Care About What People Think of You - https://youtu.be/lwXafVAtKq8

? How do I Know if I have Depression - https://youtu.be/-ym7_txOYs8

? Yaz Birth Control for Acne and PMS - https://youtu.be/PYHKd2Qvn0A

///////////////////////////////////////

SUPPORT MY WORK:

☕️ Buy Me a Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/wendyvaz

///////////////////////////////////////

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:

? Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/wendyvazzy/

? Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/livingvazzy/

? Blog: http://livingvazzy.com/

///////////////////////////////////////

MUSIC:

Emotional Sweet Piano Music by Jonny Easton - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcGEB...

l u v t e a (acoustic revisit) by autumn keys - https://soundcloud.com/autumnkeys


P/s: I am not a health professional. I'm just merely sharing my personal experience.