Traduction de «Use in 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 sel ...[+++]f-report data, analysis of blood and other body fluids, characteristic physical and psychological symptoms, 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 ...

pre-trial or pre-action order for evidence to be used at trial [ pretrial or preaction order for evidence to be used at trial ]

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

evidence for use abroad

to use documents for purposes of evidence

evidence of usage | proof of use

examine and diagnose advanced nursing care | diagnose advanced nursing care | use evidence-based therapeutic intervention for advanced nursing care diagnosis

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.

Has the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, when considering cases from veterans claiming that mefloquine use was a contributing cause of their disability, ever: (a) declined to hear further evidence from veterans deployed to Somalia detailing medical problems relating to mefloquine use amongs soldiers; (b) declined to recognize that a veteran had suffered a disability related to mefloquine use in either Somalia or Rwanda because it had no evidence from the Canadian Forces showing that the veteran had complained of mefloquine side effects while in Somalia; (c) found that mefloquine was not a contributing factor in a disability suffered b ...[+++]y a veteran who had been deployed to either Somalia or Rwanda; (d) found it had no evidence of mefloquine use by veterans who been deployed to Somalia; (e) found it had no evidence of side effects from mefloquine use by veterans who had been deployed to Somalia; (f) found it had no evidence to indicate that mefloquine caused emotional problems that would affect decision making capabilities of veterans who had been deployed to Somalia; (g) dismissed a claim from a veteran deployed to Somalia on the basis that emotional problems resulting from mefloquine only occur in situations where it is being used in the treatment of malaria and not for the prevention of malaria; (h) found it had no evidence to indicate that mefloquine caused suicidal ideation in veterans who had been deployed to Somalia or Rwanda; and in each case, if so, what measures were taken to ensure that the board had received all available data from the Canadian Forces and the Health Protection Branch of Health Canada?

(6) Any party may, at the hearing of an appeal, use in evidence against another party any part of the examination for discovery of that other party, but, on the application of an adverse party, the Court may direct that any other part of the examination, that in the opinion of the Court, is so connected with the part to be used that the last-mentioned part ought not to be used without such other part, be put in evidence by the party seeking to use such examinations.

This week, these same survivors were in court again because in spite of a provincial Superior Court ruling, they went back into the hearings and said they are not producing the evidence. The evidence on Anna Wesley and the crimes that she committed against children and the corroborating evidence that was used to convict her, they will not turn that evidence over.

(Return tabled) Question No. 452 Mr. Matthew Kellway: With regard to suppliers of garments and textiles that are manufactured outside Canada, in whole or in part, and which have been contracted by any agency or department of the government: (a) what is the process by which Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) may ask suppliers for evidence of compliance with local labour laws; (b) on how many occasions has PWGSC asked suppliers for evidence of compliance with local labour laws; (c) if PWGSC has ever requested evidence of supplier compliance with local labour laws, (i) which office within PWGSC initiated these requests an ...[+++]d under whose authority, (ii) why were these requests initiated, (iii) when were these requests initiated, (iv) were these requests for evidence limited in scope to the production process under the direct purview of the supplier, or did they extend to all inputs in the production process even if these inputs were contracted out or otherwise not directly manufactured by the supplier, (v) what type of evidence did PWGSC ask suppliers to provide, (vi) did PWGSC request that suppliers provide evidence verified by independent auditors or inspectors, (vii) did PWGSC ever give individuals from the public, organizations, or governments an opportunity to provide evidence about supplier compliance with local labour laws and to whom were these opportunities extended; (d) if suppliers have ever responded to requests made by the PWGSC for evidence of compliance with local labour laws, (i) how did suppliers respond to these requests, (ii) what information did suppliers provide as evidence, (iii) where and at which office are records of these responses kept, (iv) what method was used by PWGSC to ensure that evidence provided by these suppliers was accurate, (v) did PWGSC ever rely on the services of independent auditors or inspectors to verify the evidence provided by suppliers; (e) what is PWGSC’s policy toward suppliers that are not operating i ...