關於 why management is important ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Mình là người trì hoãn, nhưng mình không lười biếng - PROCRASTINATION !!!

1. Trì hoãn là gì? What is procrastination?💡

Là đáng ra phải hoàn thành và làm những công việc, nhiệm vụ cần làm và nên làm, thì mình tránh nó và làm những việc khác một cách cố ý/theo một thói quen. (Putting things off intentionally or habitually). Là mình thường xuyên đây :”<

2. Lý do mình hay trì hoãn? Why do I procrastinate?🤌

😮‍💨 Để giảm lo lắng, căng thẳng (Stress relief): Mình phải gọi điện cho một người, nhưng mình vừa ngại vừa hơi sợ người đó, nên nghĩ tới gọi là mình đã stress hết cả lên rồi, thôi lướt Tiktok xem video mèo mấy phút đi => trốn tránh
😯 Mục tiêu mơ hồ (Abstract goals): Mục tiêu mình muốn giỏi ngoại ngữ hay mình muốn gầy vẫn hơi chưa rõ ràng, thay vì đó “mình muốn dành thứ 2-4-6, mỗi ngày 30 phút nghe Tiếng Anh và 20 phút nói Tiếng Anh một mình, có thu âm lại".
🤯 Khó đưa ra quyết định (Decision Paralysis): Càng nhiều sự lựa chọn, càng khó chọn. Càng nhiều sự lựa chọn giống nhau, lại càng khó chọn. Lựa chọn đưa ra rất quan trọng và cần kỹ lưỡng, càng khó chọn. Hoặc đơn giản là quá nhiều việc, không biết nên lựa chọn việc nào nên làm trước => ôm đồm mệt mỏi quá => thôi nghỉ tý => delay
🤭 Theo chủ nghĩa hoàn hảo (Perfectionism): Mình trì hoãn việc viết sách mấy tháng vì mình muốn từng trang sách phải hoàn hảo, chính xác, nhưng mình biết bây giờ mình chưa đọc nhiều, chưa nghiên cứu, và mình chưa thể làm hoàn hảo được => chưa viết => delay.
- …

3. Nhưng trì hoãn không phải là - Procrastination is not:

🔐 Lười biếng - Laziness: Những người lười biếng, chỉ đơn giản là không làm bất cứ điều gì và cảm thấy ok với điều đó. Mặt khác, những người trì hoãn có mong muốn thực sự làm một điều gì đó nhưng không thể buộc bản thân mình bắt đầu.
🔐 Sự nghỉ ngơi - Relaxation: Thư giãn giúp mình thêm năng lượng, an yên trong người. Ngược lại, sự trì hoãn khiến mình sống trong lo âu, căng thẳng rằng còn bao nhiêu khối lượng công việc cần giải quyết. Sự thư giãn nếu có ở đây theo mình cảm nhận, chỉ là ngắn hạn và tự an ủi bản thân thế thui.

4. Trì hoãn đã giúp mình cái gì - What procrastination helps me with:

💡 Tăng sự sáng tạo - Increase creativity: có những hôm gần tới deadline gửi kịch bản cho khách hàng, nhưng vẫn chưa thể làm nổi, vì chưa ra được ý tưởng hay. Mình sang lướt hết các mạng xã hội, để tâm trí đi dạo lang thang (mind-wandering), làm những việc lặt vặt khác (trivial activities) và kết quả là ra được nhiều ý tưởng hay ho phết. Đương nhiên không phải lần nào cũng được vậy.
💡 Làm việc tốt hơn dưới áp lực - Working better under pressure: Nước đến chân mới nhảy khi nào cũng mang lại cảm giác căng thẳng. Tuy nhiên, nghiên cứu cho thấy căng thẳng và hiệu suất có mối quan hệ hình chữ U ngược. Khi stress được kích thích lên một mức độ, sự hiệu quả công việc cũng được cải thiện theo. Nhưng nếu căng thẳng liên tục dẫn tới kiệt sức thì cũng hỏng nha.
💡 “If you’re delaying out of fear, that is negative procrastination. But if you’re intentionally waiting, that’s positive.” - Vaden

5. CÁCH ĐỂ TRÌ HOÃN CHO RA MÔN RA KHOAI - How to procrastinate positively?
(hoặc loại bỏ chúng, tuỳ góc nhìn của mỗi người)🔓✏️

✅ Xác định stress, đối mặt với sự căng thẳng. Đếm từ 1 - 10 để phân tán thói quen và vực dậy vùng thuỳ trán (Prefrontal Cortex hay PFC) - nơi đặt mục tiêu, kế hoạch, hướng dẫn những hành động, và kiềm chế những cảm xúc. Bắt đầu làm việc trong chỉ 5 phút thôi. Vì “If you get to start doing something, 80% of you are going to keep going".
✅ Hiểu được đợi tới phút cuối mới làm (last minute) nghĩa là gì: là khi mình có đủ thời gian để hoàn thành một sản phẩm đúng hạn, đúng ngân sách, không ảnh hưởng đến chất lượng và không gây căng thẳng cho bản thân hoặc những người xung quanh.
✅ Sắp xếp ưu tiên của những đầu việc: Học hỏi từ Urgent Important Matrix (Urgent - gấp gáp, Important - quan trọng).
+ Important và Urgent (deadlines, khách feedback, vấn đề phát sinh.. ) => làm ngay và luôn
+ Important but NOT Urgent (lên kế hoạch dài hạn, làm việc hướng tới mục tiêu, học tập và rèn luyện,...) => dành nhiều thời gian cho mục này thì cân bằng tốt hơn, giảm nước tới cổ mới nhảy.
+ Urgent but NOT Important (họp thường kỳ, báo cáo, emails, điện thoại, yêu cầu từ người khác nhưng không liên quan tới mục tiêu của bản thân,... - chỉ ví dụ nhá) => thoả thuận lại deadline, phân công nếu có thể
+ Not Urgent and Not Important (lướt mạng xã hội vô thức vô định, suy nghĩ nhiều thứ lộn xộn…) => cố gắng loại bỏ dần dần và nhiều nhất có thể.
✅ Quản lý năng lượng (Energy management): Sẽ có những thời điểm trong ngày mình sảng khoái và phù hợp để làm việc => tạo thành thói quen làm trong khoảng thời gian đó xuyên suốt.
✅ Làm việc dễ nhất trước, việc khoai nhất sau (eat the frog last)
✅ Tạo deadline cho từng việc nhỏ thay vì cả một nhiệm vụ lớn: ví dụ thay vì deadline cho cả một sản phẩm video, thì lập deadline riêng cho việc nghiên cứu - tham khảo; kịch bản; quay; dựng; upload,... Từng việc nhỏ một.

Zậy đó, cảm ơn mọi người, và mình đồng cảm cùng các bạn, team trì hoãn nhưng chúng mình có thể thay đổi nó thành một hướng tích cực hơn, từ từ và cùng nhau nhá!! Bớt tự dằn vặt bản thân nữa ❤️💓❤️

Nguồn tham khảo:
Procrastination.com
GroupMap
Success
Solving Procrastination

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”

早安～每天都覺得心情不美麗嗎？
來讀 #華爾街日報 趕走腦內負能量

💐How to Stop the Negative Chatter in Your Head

打消大腦中的消極念頭

🧸Did you make your New Year’s resolutions? I hope you put “cognitive reappraisal” on the list. Psychologists use this term to refer to the practice of replacing negative thoughts with ones that are both more positive and true. People who control their self-talk in this manner have better mental health, more life satisfaction, and even better-functioning hearts, research shows. Experts say the technique, which is central to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, is an important skill to master during difficult times. The good news is that you can do it at home.

你的新年目標定好了嗎？我希望你的目標裡有「認知重評」這一項。在心理學中，「認知重評」指的是用更積極、也更真實的想法來代替消極的念頭。研究顯示，能夠以這種方式控制自我對話的人，不僅心理更健康、生活滿意度更高，就連心臟功能也更強大。專家指出，作為「認知行為療法」的核心，認知重評是度過艱難時期需掌握的一項重要技能。好消息是，你在家就可以練習這項技能。

-cognitive reappraisal: 認知重評
-psychologist: 心理學家
-master: 精通

🌞Ethan Kross is an experimental psychologist and neuroscientist who specializes in emotion regulation. He is a professor of psychology and management at the University of Michigan and director of the Emotion & Self Control Laboratory, where he studies the science of introspection, or the silent conversations people have with themselves. He has a new book coming out this month called “Chatter: The Voice in Our Head, Why it Matters, and How to Harness It.”

實驗心理學家、神經科學家伊桑·克洛斯(Ethan Kross)是情緒控制方面的專家，他目前在密歇根大學擔任心理學及管理學教授，同時還兼任情緒及自我控制實驗室(Emotion & Self Control Laboratory)的主任。在這家實驗室裡，克洛斯主要研究與自省相關的課題，所謂自省，就是人們與自己進行的一場無聲對話。今年1月，他的新書《碎碎念：腦中的聲音、它的重要性以及如何掌控它》(Chatter: The Voice in Our Head, Why it Matters, and How to Harness It)出版。

-specialize in sth: 精通某事
-introspection: 自我省察、自省
-chatter: 碎碎念
-harness: 運用、掌控

🍀Does everyone talk to themselves?
Dr. Kross: Yes. There are lots of ways we use language internally. We use it to keep things fresh in our heads, like repeating a phone number. We try to simulate what we are planning to say, like when we go on an interview or a date. We talk to ourselves when we’re trying to or when we are trying to solve a problem. When we are doing something difficult, we mentally walk ourselves through the steps we need to take. Self-talk helps us to author the stories of our life, to capture stories that explain what we have gone through. Even if our self-talk is negative, that doesn’t always mean it’s bad. We can learn things from painful experiences that help us grow and improve.

每個人都會和自己對話嗎？
克洛斯：沒錯。我們和自己對話的方式有很多種。為了讓自己記住某件事，我們會和自己說話，比如不斷重複一個電話號碼；有時候自我對話是為了排演某個場景，比如在面試或約會之前；還有的時候，當我們想努力控制自己，或是想要解決某個問題時，也會自說自話。在遇到難事兒時，我們也會在腦海中構想自己需要採取哪些步驟。
這種自我對話可以幫助我們書寫生活裡的故事，記錄我們經歷的點點滴滴。即便自我對話有時很消極，也並不總是意味著它一無是處。痛苦的經歷可以教會我們成長，幫助我們不斷改進。

-capture: 捕捉
-painful: 痛苦的

今天，我想來點「一個人的時間」？
加入每日國際選讀計畫，給自己拓展視野的機會
https://events.storm.mg/member/HOWSJ/

——
原文連結請看留言
——


#告訴我✍🏻 「 你如何趕走壞心情 」
就送你【負能量退散】單字包！

#甜點給我好心情
#運動揮灑汗水
#和自己獨處對話
#看點放鬆影片

Choosing tile can be one of the most stressful and anxiety ridden pieces of your entire renovation puzzle. I think it stems from a combination of the sheer amount of choices there are, and how difficult it is to change if you 'get it wrong'. That's why having the right tile SUPPLIER is just as important as your tile CHOICES. The right supplier helps you navigate that porcelain, concrete and ceramic sea of endless choices to get you to where you wanna be. Hope my process sheds some light on how to tackle this, and if you have more questions hit me in the comments...
Oh, and if you really wanna nerd out with me, here is my full length meeting so you can see all my questions, weird facial expressions, and deep thought:
https://youtu.be/fpbEOBPRf3k

#TheBuildTV #LoveTheProcess

http://www.TheBuild.tv

http://www.instagram.com/CarrinoAnthony
http://www.facebook.com/CarrinoAnthony
http://www.twitter.com/CarrinoAnthony
https://www.pinterest.com/CarrinoAnthony

It's either you or them, it's never me.
Welcome to the blame game.

Blame (Official Music Video)

'Blame' is a track taken from FAZZ's 'Passage' album, you can listen to the full album here: https://wmm.lnk.to/Passage

Check out FAZZ :
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/fazz_official
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/fazzmy/
Twitter : https://twitter.com/fazz_official
Website : https://www.toyboxprojects.com/artists-fazz
Artist Management: Toybox Projects Video Production: NEON 35 Media Special thanks to our sponsors;
Official Wardrobe: StyleRent Malaysia and Esmoquin Boutique Location Sponsor: The Iron Fairies Kuala Lumpur


OFFICIAL LYRICS:
not everybody fights for love and family
it’s not important
if you don’t find what you need

I tell you one thing
you can do anything
because what you do is what you get
don’t blame other just blame yourself instead

some others give excuse
to make themselves feel good
I am like one of them
complaining all the time like a simple fool
why must everything be so complicated
don’t think so much just do something
just trust yourself and try to do something

I tell you one thing
you can do anything
because what you do is what you get
don’t blame others just blame yourself instead
I tell you one thing
you can do anything
because what you do is what you get
don’t blame others just blame yourself instead

Money goes to people who don't need it. Watch the whole series here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEmTTOfet46PHB5PQ7BaAzJmLpy0vpICa
Watch this video until the end to find out why saving money is also important in investing.

★☆★BONUS FOR A LIMITED TIME★☆★
You can download Dan Lok's best-selling book F.U. Money for FREE: http://richbudget.danlok.link

Pay Attention as Dan breaks down How to Live Like The Rich While On a Budget.

★☆★ SUBSCRIBE TO DAN'S YOUTUBE CHANNEL NOW ★☆★
https://www.youtube.com/user/vanentrepreneurgroup?sub_confirmation=1

You Can spend money, Enjoy Life as long as...

1. Your First Goal: Every Year, you keep increasing your earning ability (High Income Skill) by at least 10%
2. Your Second Goal: You will save more than you saved last year.
3. Your Third Goal: Every Year, you will increase the amount you save in terms of the percent of your income.

Save More, Much More:
- If you are making less than $50,000 a year, SAVE 10%
-If you are making $50,000 or more, but less than $200,000, SAVE 15%
-If you are making $200,000 or more, but less than $500,000, SAVE 25%
-If you are making a half a million or more, but less than $2,000,000, SAVE 35%
-If you are making $2,000,000 or more, but less than $5,000,000, SAVE 40%
-If you are making $5,000,000 or more, SAVE 50%

Final Points:
- Don't Train your mind to have scarcity and fear about money vs the Abundance Mindset
-Money Comes to you when you don't need it.
-You can't get rich looking poor

Make sure to post a Comment and Share to someone who you feel needs to hear this.

★☆★ SUBSCRIBE TO DAN'S YOUTUBE CHANNEL NOW ★☆★
https://www.youtube.com/user/vanentrepreneurgroup?sub_confirmation=1

Check out these Top Trending Playlist:
1.) How to Sell High Ticket Products & Services: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEmTTOfet46PlgDZSSo-gxM8ahZ9RtNQE

2.) The Art of High Ticket Sales - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEmTTOfet46NufVkPfYhpUJAD1OBoQEEd

3.) Millionaire Mindset - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEmTTOfet46O591glMGzRMoHaIJB-bQiq

Dan Lok, a.k.a. The King of High-Ticket Sales is one of the highest-paid and most respected consultants in the luxury and “high-ticket” space.

Dan is the creator of High-Ticket Millions Methodology™, the world's most advanced system for getting high-end clients and commanding high fees with no resistance.

Dan works exclusively with coaches, consultants, thought leaders and other service professionals who want a more sustainable, leveraged lifestyle and business through High-Ticket programs and Equity Income.

Dan is one of the rare keynote speakers and business consultants that actually owns a portfolio of highly profitable business ventures.

Not only he is a two times TEDx opening speaker, he's also an international best-selling author of over 12 books and the host of Shoulders of Titans show.

Dan's availability is extremely limited. As such, he's very selective and he is expensive (although it will be FAR less expensive than staying where you are).

Many of his clients are seeing a positive return on their investments in days, not months.

But if you think your business might benefit from one-on-one interaction with Dan, visit http://danlok.com

Or consider becoming a member of his high-level mastermind for experts: http://www.danlokinnercircle.com

★☆★ WANT TO OWN DAN'S BOOKS? ★☆★
http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Lok/e/B002BLXW1K

★☆★ NEED SOLID ADVICE? ★☆★

Request a call with Dan:
https://clarity.fm/danlok

★☆★ JOIN DAN'S PRIVATE FB GROUP FOR CONSULTANTS & COACHES ★☆★

Apply here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/highticketconsulting/

Dan hangs out there quite a bit.

★☆★ CONNECT WITH DAN ON SOCIAL MEDIA ★☆★

Blog: http://www.danlok.com/blog/
Podcast: http://www.shouldersoftitans.com/
FB Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/highticketconsulting/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/danthemanlok
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/danlok/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/vanentrepreneurgroup
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/danlok
Meetup: http://www.meetup.com/Vancouver-Entrepreneurs-Group-Business-Network/
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Lok/e/B002BLXW1K



This Video is about: How To Live Like The Rich On A Budget - How to Invest Like a Millionaire Ep. 3
https://youtu.be/8W18qcAkVjU
https://youtu.be/8W18qcAkVjU