關於 23 32 meaning ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

文字遊戲？緊急授權是什麼？國產疫苗又在吵什麼？
別用片面解釋誤導民眾，本於事實的精確說明才能取得信任！
　
這幾天在網路上，針對海外疫苗的認證掀起一番論戰，許多人都提到「AZ、BNT、Moderna都是做了三期試驗，才得到主要國家緊急授權的」；昨天指揮中心召開記者會卻說「AZ、BNT、Moderna等各家疫苗都是在完成第三期試驗前，即取得主要國家緊急授權的」。
　
那到底是誰說錯了？
　
因為接下來的文章很長，我先說結論：這兩邊都只挑了想要呈現的事實來解釋，不僅不完整，也不夠精確。
　
準確來說，AZ、BNT、moderna等各家疫苗「都是在完成三期期中試驗結果後，確認試驗結果符合特定標準後，才獲得主要國家緊急授權（EUA）的。」
　
也就是說：
　
這些國外疫苗是不是二期試驗完成了就取得緊急授權（EUA）？ 不是。
　
這些國外疫苗有沒有進行三期試驗才取得緊急授權（EUA）？ 有，但是並沒有完成，提出的只是「期中報告」，指揮中心說得沒錯，完整三期試驗都要到 2021 年底之後才能做完。
　
本文開始囉！
　
首先我要先解釋何謂「緊急授權（EUA）」：一般來說，疫苗或藥品從開發到取得完整上市、完整授權，都需要非常多年的時間，然而，像是 COVID-19 這種迅速傳播的傳染病，從去年到現在已經造成全球無數傷亡，顯然沒有辦法再等上數年的時間等待疫苗完整授權。
　
也因此，如美國 FDA 等主管機關就設立了一些條件（當然也包含了疫苗試驗的階段），在保障安全性和有效性的情形下，先用「緊急授權（EUA）」，讓疫苗能夠先開始施打。
　
一、【現在這些疫苗，到底在哪個時間點「獲得」緊急授權（EUA）的？】
　
從相關文件可以很明顯的看到，這幾個廠商，「都是在完成三期中期試驗結果，確認試驗結果符合特定標準後，才獲得主要國家緊急授權（EUA）的。」
　
💉 BNT疫苗，2020／11／09 發布了 43,448 人的三期試驗期中數據報告，美國FDA則在2020／12／11，通過了該疫苗的緊急使用授權。
　
💉 AZ疫苗，2020／11／23 發布了 12,390 人的三期試驗期中數據報告，英國在2020／12／30 通過了該疫苗的緊急使用授權。
　
💉 Moderna疫苗，2020／11／16 發布了 30,420 人的三期試驗中期數據報告，美國FDA則在2020／12／18 通過了該疫苗的緊急使用授權。
　
二、【他們做的三期中期試驗報告，到底需要符合什麼條件才能取得EUA？】
　
這個條件到底是什麼呢，事實上在美國FDA的網站上載明得非常清楚。
　
首先它必須是「基於三期試驗的最終或中期分析成果」"based on a final analysis of a phase 3 clinical efficacy trial or an interim analysis of such trial"
　
再者它必須是「數據基礎必須超過三千位受試者」"an EUA request will include a phase 3 safety database of well over 3,000 vaccine recipients"
　
此外它必須有「第三期試驗中，過半受試者至少兩個月的追蹤數據。」" meaning that at least half of vaccine recipients in phase 3 clinical trials have at least 2 months of follow-up"
　
當然，普遍來說，也會要求第三期初步結果至少有 50 %的保護力。
　
也就是說，海外目前合格的疫苗，絕對沒有「只做」二期試驗就得到EUA的。然而，因為過去完成三期試驗必須耗時多年，因此縮短標準的EUA，要求的是「部分的三期試驗成果」。
　
事實上台灣目前的爭論，在一年前的美國也曾出現過，當時美國正在疫情高峰，單日確診數甚至達十萬以上，政治、經濟的壓力都非常強，但 FDA 最後還是秉持實證醫學的理念，要求藥廠要以臨床試驗的結果進行評估。
　
三、【指揮中心說國產二期就有可能拿到EUA是什麼意思？可能的問題是什麼？】
　
當然，雖然前面提到美國 FDA 如何堅持原則，但也必須要說，為了達到這樣的原則，美國傾盡了全國之力投入疫苗研發，這就是川普政府和民間共同出錢出力的「曲速行動計畫（Operation Warp Speed）」，就是希望在最短的時間內完成疫苗開發。
　
這個計畫基金總共有 180 億美元，正是因為三期疫苗試驗非常昂貴，以 BNT 來說，可能就花了數百億台幣，這也是為什麼，現在除了英、美之外，幾乎沒有國家有辦法在那麼短的時間內製造疫苗。
　
另外，在這些有效疫苗問世後，新的疫苗就不適合繼續在臨床試驗中，給受試者打食鹽水當對照，等於讓他們承受感染風險，進而面臨「倫理議題」的批判。這也是為什麼，全球開始思考要如何避免現在三期試驗出現的高門檻；陳建仁前副總統前幾天提到：「若未來中和抗體量能與其他廠牌的疫苗保護力相同，就可以接受食藥署審查」，正是其中一種概念。
　
也就是說，透過已獲認證的疫苗來作為標準，尚未進入三期臨床的疫苗，根據中和抗體比較，只要能產生足夠的抗體即可證實他的保護力，這在過去的流感、肝炎等疫苗都曾應用過。
　
這就是 WHO 近期開始討論的「免疫橋接實驗」，包含 WHO 和歐盟，都正在努力制定一個「抗體保護力（COP）」標準，讓這樣的中和抗體評估可以成為一種認證標準。
　
根據媒體報導，台灣的高端疫苗在近期（5／26）也收到 WHO 的邀請，參與了一場會議，除了討論這樣的標準，高端疫苗也表示等待準則公布後，會向歐盟 EMA 申請。
　
聽起來不是很棒嗎？可能出現的問題在哪？
　
首先，最重要的一點是，國產疫苗甚至連二期試驗都還沒解盲，而所謂的「抗體保護力（COP）」標準，目前 WHO 也還沒有真的提出來。
　
也有許多專家提醒，「理論上有效、初期人體試驗有效，但大規模臨床試驗發現是無效的記錄太多了」、「過去的疫苗是因為研究多年，才能確認中和抗體能夠當作有效性的替代指標」，甚至連陳時中部長都說，「國產疫苗目前是打算要用中和抗體的比較去確認有效性，確實比較不完整」。
　
而美國 FDA 也曾明確指出，「尚無數據可確認中和抗體的效價要多高，才能預防有臨床症狀的武漢肺炎」。
　
除此之外，即便我們的國產疫苗，很幸運獲得與moderna 同源（美國國衛院NIH）的技術轉移，但所用技術並不同，安全性也無法一概而論。縱使國產所用的次蛋白技術較為成熟，我們也還無法確定他的副作用如何，讓國產疫苗確實存在許多變數。
　
而且，雖然食藥署目前訂定的 EUA 條件為「二期受試者三千人以上，追蹤一個月的安全及療效」即可取得，但前幾天陳時中部長也強調，國產的安全性、有效性仍需要專家和科學的驗證。
　
四、【我當然支持國產疫苗研發，也具高度信心，不過呢？】
　
我要再次強調，國產疫苗當然有高度戰略價值，因為病毒未來很可能會持續變異，導致每年都要打新的一劑，甚至需要繼續研發新的技術，更遑論台灣的國際處境，讓我們勢必要擁有自給自足的技術。
　
因此，我高度支持國產疫苗的研發，我也希望這不只是短期的期待投射，而是長期的資源挹注！
　
除此之外，高端疫苗昨天發布聲明，當中提到，「本公司疫苗二期臨床結果如符合預期，將加速執行符合國際規範之三期臨床試驗，以取得國際認證為目標。」
　
而據媒體報導，聯亞生技則表示「已透過集團在美國的關係企業，向印度申請規模1.1萬人的三期臨床試驗，目標是今年年底之前完成三期臨床試驗的期中分析。」
　
　
我們當然期待，也樂見國產疫苗進入第三期臨床試驗並取得相關研究結果。
　
然而，我還是要提醒執政黨，不應該在國產疫苗還沒完成二期解盲的情況下，就把它納入八月台灣會取得的一千萬劑疫苗當中，彷彿像一個連期中考都還沒完成的學生，卻事先拿到成績一樣，不僅將國人健康陷入風險，更有可能導致未來施打後仍無法進行國境間的移動。
　
在二期解盲、國際抗體保護力標準訂出來之前，不應該將民眾的健康視若罔顧。
　
因此，我呼籲執政黨應該繼續透過公私協力，儘速取得獲國際認證疫苗，才能做好萬全準備，應對這個看不見終點的疫情，我也要呼籲指揮中心，不精確的說法會導致民眾的誤導，更疊高了社會溝通的成本，而信任、對話，才是疫情下台灣最需要的東西。

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”

［翻轉視界 8］逃離禁錮之地：離開北韓我學會自由與憐憫
　
“If you don't know the words, that means you don't understand the concept, and therefore, you don't even realize that concept is even a possibility.” —— human rights activist Yeonmi Park。
　
「如果你不知道某些詞彙，那就意味著你並不了解某些概念，因此你也不會意識到，那些概念可以是一種可能。」——人權鬥士朴延美
　
對出逃前的她而言，自由與溫飽是很奢侈的理念，更無法了解「愛」的全貌。當我們無法得知世界發生了什麼，無法想像那超越自身認知的世界，我們便無法真正地同理他人。今天我想邀請大家，以不同的角度，重新感受自由、溫飽與愛的可貴。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
I was born in 1993 in the northern part of North Korea, in a town called Hyesan, which is on the border with China. I had loving parents and one older sister. Before I was even 10 years old, my father was sent to a labor camp for engaging in illegal trading. Now, by "illegal trading" -- he was selling clogs, sugar, rice and later copper to feed us. In 2007, my sister and I decided to escape. She was 16 years old, and I was 13 years old.
　
1. on the border with 鄰近邊界
2. labor camp 勞改營
3. illegal trading 非法的交易
　
１９９３年我出生在北韓的北部，一個名叫惠山的小鎮，鄰近中國邊界。我有愛我的父母與一位姐姐。在我１０歲大的時候，父親就被送去勞改營，因為他非法買賣一些東西。所謂的非法買賣，其實他是賣一些木鞋、糖、米，之後還賣了銅，只為了餵飽我們。２００７年，姐姐和我決定逃跑。她當時１６歲，而我１３歲。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
I need you to understand what the word "escape" means in the context of North Korea. We were all starving, and hunger means death in North Korea. So it was the only option for us. I didn't even understand the concept of escape, but I could see the lights from China at night, and I wondered if I go where the light is, I might be able to find a bowl of rice. It's not like we had a grand plan or maps. We did not know anything about what was going to happen. Imagine your apartment building caught fire. I mean, what would you do? Would you stay there to be burned, or would you jump off out of the window and see what happens? That's what we did. We jumped out of the house instead of the fire.
　
4. in the context of 在⋯⋯的情境中
5. concept 概念；觀念；思想
6. a grand plan 一個遠大的計畫
7. catch fire 著火
　
你們要知道，「逃跑」這兩字在北韓意味著什麼。我們天天挨餓，而飢餓在北韓意味著死亡。所以逃跑是我們唯一的選擇。我當時還不了解逃跑是什麼意思，但晚上我能看見中國那邊的燈光，我想著如果我能到有光的地方，也許就能找到一碗飯。我們沒有什麼遠大的計畫或地圖。我們完全不知道，接下來會發生什麼事。想像一下，你的公寓失火了，你會怎麼辦？你會坐以待斃，還是跳窗然後再看著辦？我們就是那樣。我們從大樓上跳了下來， 而不是等火燒上來。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
North Korea is unimaginable. It's very hard for me when people ask me what it feels like to live there. To be honest, I tell you: you can't even imagine it. The words in any language can't describe, because it's a totally different planet, as you cannot imagine your life on Mars right now. For example, the word "love" has only one meaning: love for the Dear Leader. There's no concept of romantic love in North Korea. And if you don't know the words, that means you don't understand the concept, and therefore, you don't even realize that concept is even a possibility.
　
8. unimaginable 無法想像
9. no concept of... 沒有⋯的概念
10. romantic love 浪漫愛
　
北韓是難以想像的。對我來說，要回答住在北韓是什麼感覺，非常困難。老實說，我可以告訴各位——你無從想像。沒有任何語言可以描述，因為那是個截然不同的星球，就像你現在無法想像自己在火星上的生活一樣。比如說，「愛」只有一個意思：愛偉大的領袖。在北韓沒有那種浪漫之愛的概念。如果你不知道某些詞彙，那就意味著你並不了解某些概念，因此你也不會意識到，那些概念可以是一種可能。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
Let me give you another example. Growing up in North Korea, we truly believed that our Dear Leader is an almighty god who can even read my thoughts. I was even afraid to think in North Korea. We are told that he's starving for us, and he's working tirelessly for us, and my heart just broke for him. When I escaped to South Korea, people told me that he was actually a dictator, he had cars, many, many resorts, and he had an ultraluxurious life. And then I remember looking at a picture of him, realizing for the first time that he is the largest guy in the picture. And it hit me. Finally, I realized he wasn't starving. But I was never able to see that before, until someone told me that he was fat.
　
11. an almighty god 一個全能的神
12. tirelessly 不屈不撓地；堅忍地
13. a dictator 獨裁者
14. it hit me 突然想到、意識到 
15. resort 度假地（此處係指北韓獨裁者有很多度假別墅）
16. ultraluxurious 極其奢華的
17. have a…life 過著⋯⋯的生活
　
讓我再舉一個例子。在北韓長大，我們真心相信我們偉大的領袖是全能的神，他甚至能看穿我在想什麼。我在北韓甚至不敢思考。我們聽說他為我們挨餓、不眠不休地為我們工作，而我為此感到心痛。我逃到南韓後，有人跟我說他其實是獨裁者，他有很多車、很多很多渡假別墅，他的生活極為奢華。我記得自己看著一張有他的照片，第一次意識到他是照片裡體型最大的那個。這件事讓我大受打擊。那時我才終於了解，他沒有挨餓。但我以前總無法看清這些，直到有人跟我說他很胖，我才恍然大悟。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
Really, someone had to teach me that he was fat. If you have never practiced critical thinking, then you simply see what you're told to see. The biggest question also people ask me is: "Why is there no revolution inside North Korea? Are we dumb? Why is there no revolution for 70 years of this oppression?" And I say: If you don't know you're a slave, if you don't know you're isolated or oppressed, how do you fight to be free? I mean, if you know you're isolated, that means you are not isolated. Not knowing is the true definition of isolation, and that's why I never knew I was isolated when I was in North Korea. I literally thought I was in the center of the universe.
　
18. critical thinking 批判性思考
19. revolution 革命
20. dumb 愚蠢的*
21. oppression 壓迫；壓制；欺壓
22. isolated and oppressed 與世隔絕的與被壓迫的
　
真的，要有人教我，他這樣叫做胖。如果你沒學過批判性思考，你看到的就只會是別人跟你說的。其他人對我提出的大哉問還有：「為何北韓沒有革命？我們傻嗎？為何歷經７０年的壓迫，卻沒人發動革命？」我回答：「如果你不知道自己是奴隸，不知道自己被與世隔絕、壓迫，你要如何為自由而戰？我的意思是，如果你知道自己被與世隔絕，那就表示你並非真的與世隔絕。與世隔絕的真正定義是無知，所以我從不知道，在北韓的我與世隔絕。我真的以為我們是宇宙的中心。

*dumb: https://bit.ly/3fG5XOk
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
So here is my idea worth spreading: a lot of people think humans inherently know what is right and wrong, the difference between justice and injustice, what we deserve and we don't deserve. I tell them: BS. Everything, everything must be taught, including compassion. If I see someone dying on the street right now, I will do anything to save that person. But when I was in North Korea, I saw people dying and dead on the streets. I felt nothing. Not because I'm a psychopath, but because I never learned the concept of compassion. Only, I felt compassion, empathy and sympathy in my heart after I learned the word "compassion" and the concept, and I feel them now.
　
23. inherently 與生俱來地
24. justice and injustice 正義與不義
25. psychopath 精神病患者
26. compassion, empathy and sympathy 憐憫、同理與同情*
　
我覺得值得分享的想法是：很多人以為，人類生來就能分辨是非對錯，懂得正義與邪惡的差別，我們值得被怎樣對待。我跟他們說：放屁。所有的事，所有的事都得經過教導，包含憐憫。如果我現在看見有人在路邊奄奄一息，我會不顧一切來救他。但我在北韓的時候，會眼睜睜看著有人橫死街頭，卻沒有任何感覺。並非因為我是心理病態，而是我從未學過憐憫的概念。只有在我的內心感受到憐憫、同理與同情，我才學會「憐憫」一詞與其概念，而如今我已能感受到這些。
　
*compassion: a strong feeling of sympathy and sadness for the suffering or bad luck of others and a wish to help them

empathy: the ability to share someone else's feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in that person's situation

sympathy: (an expression of) understanding and care for someone else's suffering
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
Now I live in the United States as a free person.
　
現在我以自由人的身分住在美國。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
And recently, the leader of the free country, our President Trump, met with my former god. And he decided human rights is not important enough to include in his agendas, and he did not talk about it. And it scares me. We live in a world right now where a dictator can be praised for executing his uncle, for killing his half brother, killing thousands of North Koreans. And that was worthy of praise. And also it made me think: perhaps we all need to be taught something new about freedom now. Freedom is fragile. I don't want to alarm you, but it is. It only took three generations to make North Korea into George Orwell's "1984." It took only three generations. If we don't fight for human rights for the people who are oppressed right now who don't have a voice, as free people here, who will fight for us when we are not free? Machines? Animals? I don't know.
　
27. agenda 議程
28. be praised for 因⋯⋯獲得讚揚
29. execute (v.) 處決
30. worthy of sth 適合某物或具有某物的特徵
31. fragile 脆弱
　
最近，自由國度的領袖，我們的川普總統，和我以前的神會面。他認定，人權沒那麼重要，不需排進議程中，所以對此他隻字不提。這嚇壞我了。我們竟身在一個獨裁者處決伯父還能獲得讚揚的世界裡，他殺害同父異母的哥哥、殺害成千上萬的北韓人民，竟還能得到讚揚。這不禁使我開始思考，也許我們現在都要學習自由的新涵義。自由很脆弱。我不想嚇你，但事實如此。短短三個世代，就讓北韓淪為喬治．歐威爾筆下的《１９８４》。只花了三個世代。如果我們不為人權而戰，不為受壓迫、不為無法發聲的人而戰，當身為自由人的我們不自由時，誰還願意為我們而戰？機器嗎？動物嗎？我不知道。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
I think it's wonderful that we care about climate change, animal rights, gender equality, all of these things. The fact that we care about animals' rights, that means that's how beautiful our heart is, that we care about someone who cannot speak for themselves. And North Koreans right now cannot speak for themselves. They don't have internet in the 21st century. We don't have electricity, and it is the darkest place on earth right now. Now I want to say something to my fellow North Koreans who are living in that darkness. They might not believe this, but I want to tell them that an alternative life is possible. Be free.
　
32. speak for oneself 為某人發聲
33. alternative life 另一種生活
　
我覺得我們能關心氣候變遷、動物權益、性別平等諸如此類之事，真的很美好。因為，我們關心動物權益，就代表了我們的心地有多善良，也代表我們關心無法為自己發聲的對象。北韓人民現在無法為自己發聲。身處２１世紀的他們，沒有網路可用。我們沒有電，那裡是當今地球上最暗的地方。現在我想告訴那些生活在北韓黑暗中的同胞。也許他們不會相信我，但我想告訴他們，生命仍有其他可能——意即自由的生活。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
From my experience, literally anything is possible. I was bought, I was sold as a slave. But now I'm here, and that is why I believe in miracles. The one thing that I learned from history is that nothing is forever in this world. And that is why we have every reason to be hopeful. Thank you.
　
34. slave 奴隸
35. miracle 奇蹟
　
就我的經驗，真的什麼事都有可能發生。我被人買走，賣給別人當奴隸。但我現在在這裡，這也就是為什麼我相信奇蹟。我從歷史上學到的一件事，就是世上沒有什麼是永恆的。而這也是我們無論如何都能懷有希望的原因。謝謝大家。
　
資訊出處：https://bit.ly/32p5HiK
　
圖片出處：https://bit.ly/32n2zEe
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
如何增進同理心：https://bit.ly/34qSKnC
　
#ChangingPerspectives
#翻轉視界

★★★★★★★★★★★★

翻轉視界系列文章: https://bit.ly/3fPvKUs

本日はジオーディナリー購入時の注意点
偽物の見分け方やどこで買うべきかを
お伝えしたいと思います！

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

📍購入出来るところ📍

公式：
https://theordinary.deciem.com/ca/theordinary-products

ルックファンタスティック：
https://www.lookfantastic.jp/

カルトビューティー：
https://www.cultbeauty.co.uk

セフォラ：
https://www.sephora.com

エイソス：
https://www.asos.com

ビューティーベイ：
https://www.beautybay.com

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

📍参考動画やサイト📍

日本語

Harukoさんの動画：
https://youtu.be/RTZmXKGYiL0

【美肌研究家】KyoNさんの動画：
https://youtu.be/8oOem0FgMBQ


英語

ジオーディナリーの偽物 - 本物と偽物を見極める方法：
https://www.deciemchatroom.com/the-ordinary-fake/

テクスチャー・色・香り参考チャート：
https://beautyblogwales.com/2021/01/23/are-you-worried-that-your-new-the-ordinary-product-is-a-fake/

新旧ボトルの違い：
https://youtu.be/BmrDJIoq_IQ
比較写真：
https://docdro.id/2IEicuq

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

📝 割引コードなど / discount codes etc. 📝
POPLENS - 💰 https://www.poplens.jp
紹介コード：P0368160
YES STYLE - 💰 https://ystyle.co/VkFy
look fantastic - 💰 https://www.lookfantastic.jp/referrals.list?applyCode=XWDV-R1
※ 3,500円以上の購入で700円OFF
『VIVI20』で20%OFF ※ 一部対象外あり
Magiclinks - 💰 https://www.magiclinks.com/rewards/referral/vivimeg/
Tube Buddy - 💰 https://www.Tubebuddy.com/ViviMeg
MORNINGFA·ME - 💰 https://morningfa.me/invite/exmqmo3n
iHerb - 💰 https://www.iherb.com/?rcode=COE3037
Rebates - 💰 https://www.rebates.jp/referrer?refer...

☺️ サポートはこちらから ☺️
https://www.amazon.jp/hz/wishlist/ls/...
https://ko-fi.com/xxmegxx

📝 機材 📝
カメラ：iPhone 8 ＋ iPhone 11 Pro
背景：💰 https://amzn.to/3s4GsLW
三脚(少)：💰 https://amzn.to/3taujqb
三脚(大)：💰 https://amzn.to/324qMOn
リングライト ：https://bit.ly/2PYLqg6
編集：VLLOプレミアム

📝 SNS 📝
Instagram ▶︎ http://instagram.com/megdoesreviews

📝 contact 📝
email ▶︎ megdoesreviews@gmail.com

📝 FTC Legal Disclaimer 📝
💰から始まるリンクはアフィリエイトになります。リンクから購入や登録をすると、私に報酬や特典が入りますのでご了承ください。
some links above may be affiliate links, meaning i will make a small commission on sales you make through my link. they will be marked with a 💰 sign. this is at no extra cost to you, just one more way to support me and my channel! thank you in advance!

love meg x

#ジオーディナリー #theordinary

✨本集來賓：Sean 是我在 Instagram 紐約的同事

- 我們雖然在 IG 不同 Team 在一些project合作過的經驗 | Projects we collaborated on at IG on different teams
- 在Facebook可怕的升遷制度學到的經驗 | Lessons learned from Facebook's tough promotion
- 如何在大公司內離開舒適圈 | Leaving your comfort zone at a big company
- 哪一本書讓Sean學到如何對自己的快樂負責走出低潮療癒自我 | The book that helped Sean take responsibility of happiness & self healing
- 忙碌的幻覺 | The mirage of busyness
- 一個健康的感情該有的依賴獨立觀念 | What a healthy relationship looks like in terms of dependency
- 還有Sean 做很多有趣的自我實驗 | Interesting social experiments Sean did

📚 Books mentioned:
- The Happiness Project
- Essentialism
- Extreme Ownership
- 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
- Working Out Loud

我們每集都會辦抽書活動，記得 follow 我們 🤩
IG: https://www.instagram.com/leftsideescalator.jacky/
FB: https://www.facebook.com/LeftSideEscalator.Jacky/

***

(00:02:20) 紐約疫情爆發的恐怖經驗 | Covid19 disaster in New York
(00:04:55) 台灣長大，美國念書的文化衝擊，如何融入 | Growing up in Taiwan, moving to the US, culture shock and assimilating
(00:07:27) 回來當兵？！| Military Service?
(00:07:40) 進Facebook的經驗，Instagram的工作經驗 | Experience joining Facebook and working at Instagram
(00:12:47) 如何在大公司跳出舒適圈，挑戰新領域 | Leaving your comfort zone at a big company, trying a new area
(00:17:25) Instagram工作的有趣經歷 | Interesting working experience at Instagram
(00:20:02) 職涯的意義 | Sean's career meaning
(00:23:48) 大家不喜歡「改變」這件事 | People resist change
(00:27:35) Kobe的啟發跟過世 | Kobe's inspiration & legacy
(00:32:22) 5am 早起運動，借助團體的力量達成更好的自律 | 5 am workouts, the power of communities
(00:34:12) 時間管理的好習慣 | Time management habits
(00:37:15) 最有影響的書幫他走出低潮療癒自我 | Most influential book to get through dark time & self heal
(00:39:41) 健康感情如何不失去自我 | How to not lose yourself in a healthy relationship
(00:44:26) 從 Facebook 升遷的壓力學到的慘痛經驗，解決問題代替責怪 | Lesson learned from Facebook's tough promotion pressure, ownership over blame game
(00:49:56) 如何改進 反省自己 | How to self reflect & improve
(00:52:40) 成功的定義 | Definition of success
(00:54:39) 快樂的定義 | Definition of happiness
(00:55:56) 如何改變世界 | How to change the world
(00:57:43) 一年吃素挑戰 | Vegetarian challenge for a year
(1:03:01) 總結 | Conclusion

こんにちは！
本日は、スキンケア多め
最近の使い切りアイテムをご紹介させてください☺️
リピートあり？なし？
気になる方は、ぜひ、ご覧ください！

◯ 使い切りプレイリスト：
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuw86AQwP0tIYTDZ3fGTW33mpbvnqPLuk

【スキンケア多め】全17点‼️最近の使い切りアイテム🗑

0:00 イントロ

📝 紹介した商品 / products mentioned📝

アイコンの意味 / icon meanings
🎁 提供 / gifted
💝 ギフト / present
💸 購入 / purchased
🔗 トラッキングリンク / tracking link
💰 バックあり / commission

💸 キャンメイク (0:10)
クイックラッシュカーラー リムーバー
¥550(税込)
💰 Amazon - https://amzn.to/2YcvSa3

💸 シュープリームノイ (0:42)
ディープミネラルクレンジング
定期価格：¥2,376(税込)
単品価格：¥2,640(税込)
🔗 公式 - https://bit.ly/3iB0BWR

💝 &be (1:05)
Clear cleanse water
500ml　¥3,080(税込)
公式 - https://www.and-be.jp/c/gr01/a004

🎁 江原道 (1:24)
オリエンタルプランツ
発酵ローション60
150ml　¥4,950(税込)
公式 - https://shop.kohgendo.com/c/item/D1011014/

🎁 草花木果 (1:49)
大人のニキビライン
アクネ化粧水 (しっとりタイプ)
💰 公式 - http://puresugarme.space/app?p=971&m=398&s=4519&ma=1695

💸 インキーリスト (2:18)
Hyaluronic Acid
£5.99 ※ カートに入れるとTAX免除で£4.99
💰 Cult Beauty - https://go.magik.ly/ml/148f2/

🎁 PHOEBE BEAUTY UP (2:53)
セラムショット GLOW YOUR SKIN
定期価格：¥2,900(税抜)
単品価格：¥3,700(税抜)
💰 公式 - http://velveteye.club/app?p=1118&m=398&s=4519&ma=1855

🎁 草花木果 (3:17)
大人のニキビライン
アクネ保湿液 (しっとりタイプ)
💰 公式 - http://puresugarme.space/app?p=971&m=398&s=4519&ma=1695

💸 GOOD MOLECULES (3:38)
Pure Cold-Pressed Rosehip Seed Oil
13ml ¥1,100(税込)
💰 Beautylish - https://go.magik.ly/ml/162rk/

💸 GOOD MOLECULES (4:07)
Ultra-Hydrating Facial Oil
13ml ¥1,100(税込)
💰 Beautylish - https://go.magik.ly/ml/162rl/

💸 エヌズコレクション (4:48)
さば定食
¥1,760(税込)
💰 Amazon - https://amzn.to/31uAclD

💸 エヌズコレクション (5:09)
ほうじ茶ラテ
¥1,760(税込)
💰 Amazon - https://amzn.to/3tV2GRZ

💸 キャンメイク (5:38)
クイックラッシュカーラー クリア
¥748(税込)
💰 Amazon - https://amzn.to/2UIoVLP

💸 キャンメイク (5:56)
クイックラッシュカーラー ブラック
¥748(税込)
💰 Amazon - https://amzn.to/39YTthM

💸 エテュセ (6:23)
リップエディション アクティブスタイル
01 サンシャインイエロー

💸 キャンメイク (6:58)
フルーティーピュアリップオイル
04 ストロベリーソーダ
¥770(税込)
💰 Amazon - https://amzn.to/3lVDrvQ

💝 RMK (7:32)
コンフォートエアリーシャイン
06 スパークリングブルー
¥3,850(税込)
公式 - https://bit.ly/2GB3Df3

#使い切り #使い切りコスメ #使い切りスキンケア

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

📝 割引コードなど / discount codes etc. 📝
POPLENS - https://www.poplens.jp 紹介コード：P0368160
YES STYLE - https://ystyle.co/VkFy
look fantastic - https://www.lookfantastic.jp/referrals.list?applyCode=XWDV-R1
※ 3,500円以上の購入で700円OFF
『VIVI20』で20%OFF ※ 一部対象外あり
Magiclinks - https://www.magiclinks.com/rewards/referral/vivimeg/
Tube Buddy - https://www.Tubebuddy.com/ViviMeg
iHerb - https://www.iherb.com/?rcode=COE3037
Rebates - https://www.rebates.jp/referrer?referrerid=dcS7FMkmDFk%3D&src=iOS

☺️ サポートはこちらから ☺️
https://www.amazon.jp/hz/wishlist/ls/2YIAFFUJA2FTQ?ref_=wl_share

📝 SNS 📝
Instagram ▶︎ http://instagram.com/vivimegmakeup
Twitter ▶︎ https://twitter.com/vivimegmakeup

📝 contact 📝
email ▶︎ contactvivimegmakeup@gmail.com

📝 FTC Legal Disclaimer 📝
💰から始まるリンクはアフィリエイトになります。リンクから購入すると、私に報酬が入りますのでご了承ください。
some links above may be affiliate links, meaning i will make a small commission on sales you make through my link. they will be marked with a 💰 sign. this is at no extra cost to you, just one more way to support me and my channel! thank you in advance!

love meg x

#使い切り #使い切りスキンケア #使い切りコスメ