Traduction de «reported evidence » (Anglais → Français) :

Definition: This block contains a wide variety of disorders that differ in severity and clinical form but that are all attributable to the use of one or more psychoactive substances, which may or may not have been medically prescribed. The third character of the code identifies the substance involved, and the fourth character specifies the clinical state. The codes should be used, as required, for each substance specified, but it should be noted that not all fourth character codes are applicable to all substances. Identification of the psychoactive substance should be based on as many sources of information as possible. These include self-report data, analysis of blood and other body fluids, characteristic physical and psychological symptom ...[+++]s, clinical signs and behaviour, and other evidence such as a drug being in the patient's possession or reports from informed third parties. Many drug users take more than one type of psychoactive substance. The main diagnosis should be classified, whenever possible, according to the substance or class of substances that has caused or contributed most to the presenting clinical syndrome. Other diagnoses should be coded when other psychoactive substances have been taken in intoxicating amounts (common fourth character .0) or to the extent of causing harm (common fourth character .1), dependence (common fourth character .2) or other disorders (common fourth character .3-.9). Only in cases in which patterns of psychoactive substance-taking are chaotic and indiscriminate, or in which the contributions of different psychoactive substances are inextricably mixed, should the diagnosis of disorders resulting from multiple drug use (F19.-) be used. | Modifiers The following fourth-character subdivisions are for use with categories F10-F19: Code Title .0 Acute intoxication A condition that follows the administration of a psychoactive substance resulting in disturbances in level of consciousness, cognition, perception, affect or behaviour, o ...

derivative evidence | reported evidence | second-hand evidence | substitutionary evidence | unoriginal evidence

autoptic evidence | demonstrative evidence | mathematical evidence | objective evidence | objective fact evidence | real evidence | tangible evidence | tangible exhibit

Report of the Federal/Provincial Task Force on Uniform Rules of Evidence

Employment Insurance and Social Assistance : Evidence on Program Interaction : Final Report

evidence-based approach in primary care | evidence-based medicine in general practice | evidence-based approach in general practice | evidence-based approach in medical care

Definition: Dissociative stupor is diagnosed on the basis of a profound diminution or absence of voluntary movement and normal responsiveness to external stimuli such as light, noise, and touch, but examination and investigation reveal no evidence of a physical cause. In addition, there is positive evidence of psychogenic causation in the form of recent stressful events or problems.

Definition: A disorder characterized by impairment of memory, learning difficulties, and reduced ability to concentrate on a task for more than brief periods. There is often a marked feeling of mental fatigue when mental tasks are attempted, and new learning is found to be subjectively difficult even when objectively successful. None of these symptoms is so severe that a diagnosis of either dementia (F00-F03) or delirium (F05.-) can be made. This diagnosis should be made only in association with a specified physical disorder, and should not be made in the presence of any of the mental or behavioural disorders classified to F10-F99. The disorder may precede, accompany, or follow a wide variety of infections and physical disorders, both cerebral and systemic, b ...[+++]ut direct evidence of cerebral involvement is not necessarily present. It can be differentiated from postencephalitic syndrome (F07.1) and postconcussional syndrome (F07.2) by its different etiology, more restricted range of generally milder symptoms, and usually shorter duration.

(Return tabled) Question No. 124 Hon. Judy Sgro: With regard to the Prime Minister’s undertaking to establish new mandatory reporting standards for Canadian extractive companies: (a) what steps has the government taken since the 39th G8 Summit to develop a comprehensive bill that would require Canadian companies to disclose any payments made to foreign governments; (b) what steps did the government take prior to the 39th G8 Summit to develop a comprehensive bill that would require Canadian companies to disclose any payments made to foreign governments; (c) does the Prime Minister’s commitment, as referred to in (a), apply exclusively t ...[+++]o Canadian extractive corporations, (i) does it apply exclusively to Canadian corporations as regards extractive operations in foreign countries, (ii) what is the scope of said commitment; (d) has the government prepared or reviewed any draft bill that proposes to implement such reporting requirements as referred to in (a) and if so, to what extent has it consulted on this issue, (i) with whom, (ii) when; (e) has the government conducted or reviewed any studies regarding the effect of mandatory reporting requirements on increasing corporate accountability and combatting corruption; (f) has the government compiled or reviewed any other evidence regarding the effect of mandatory reporting requirements on increasing corporate accountability and combatting corruption; (g) has the Department of Justice been consulted with regard to the formulation of a comprehensive reporting regime that would apply to Canadian companies; (h) has the government consulted with the Department of Justice, or sought a legal opinion from any other source, as to the constitutionality of a mandatory disclosure regime as referred to in (a); (i) has the government expressed any position, either publically or internally, as to the constitutionality of such a mandatory disclosure regime as applied to Canadian companies; (j) has the government consulted with p ...

If a Reporting Financial Institution has relied on the residence address test described in subparagraph B(1) of Section III of Annex I and there is a change in circumstances that causes the Reporting Financial Institution to know or have reason to know that the original Documentary Evidence (or other equivalent documentation) is incorrect or unreliable, the Reporting Financial Institution must, by the later of the last day of the relevant calendar year or other appropriate reporting period, or 90 calendar days following the notice or discovery of such cha ...[+++]nge in circumstances, obtain a self-certification and new Documentary Evidence to establish the residence(s) for tax purposes of the Account Holder.

With respect to a Pre-existing Entity Account, Reporting Financial Institutions may use as Documentary Evidence any classification in the Reporting Financial Institution's records with respect to the Account Holder that was determined based on a standardised industry coding system, that was recorded by the Reporting Financial Institution consistent with its normal business practices for purposes of AML/KYC Procedures or another regulatory purposes (other than for tax purposes) and that was implemented by the Reporting Financial Instit ...[+++]ution prior to the date used to classify the Financial Account as a Pre-existing Account, provided that the Reporting Financial Institution does not know or does not have reason to know that such classification is incorrect or unreliable.

ECHA, Practical guide 2: How to report weight of evidence’, 2010, [http ...]