精神损害赔偿论文外文翻译

SPECIFICITIES OF THE CANADIAN APPROACH

加拿大方式的具体体现

When studying the Canadian approach to compensation for stress related disease,one is struck by the Compensation Boards' lack of preoccupation with what is actuallystated in the law. Distinctions between physical and psychological disability areoften applied, always in the absence of statutory authority that would justify a doublestandard. These distinctions may affect the way a claim is filed and evaluated, andin some cases they are used to actually change the rule of law as to burden ofproof, and even as to the notion of compensable injury. In provinces where thestatute clearly covers disablement arising out of and in the course of employment,it is surprising to be confronted with blunt refusals of all forms of chronic stressclaims, regardless of their merits. Yet such is the approach of several Compensation Boards studied. Other provinces, more subtle in their reticence, will apply specialrules exacting evidence of unusual circumstances, even when admitting that thedisability is work-related.

当学习加拿大这种对与压力有关的疾病的赔偿的方式时，人们会震惊于赔偿委员会缺少对实际上法律规定的东西的全面关注。身体残疾和心理障碍之间的区别经常在没有法律的授权下得到应用，这证明了双重标准的存在。这些区别可能影响索赔的申请和评估的方式，并且在某些情况下，它们实际上被用作把法律的规则改变为举证责任，甚至作为给予赔偿性工伤的概念。在法规明确界定了起于雇佣过程中产生的精神损害的省份，令人惊讶的是，不论它们是否有道理，人们必须面对针对长期压力索赔的一切形式的直接拒绝。然而这些只是赔偿委员会研究出来几个的方法。在其他省份，他们的沉默更加微妙，它们会采用特殊的规则来强制索要非正常情况下的证据，即使在承认残疾是与其工作有关的时候也是一样。

In Canada, as elsewhere, the issue of compensation for stress is seen as a bugbearboth by Compensation Boards and by employers. Because the sources of psychologi-cal stress are usually measured by self-reporting, and because the resulting disabilitycan not be X-rayed or corroborated with the techniques traditionally used to evaluatephysical disability, there is a seemingly universal fear that employers will end uppaying for disabilities that are not work-related. This fear is partially based on thefact that most psychological disabilities have multiple etiologies, and that no scientifictechniques can be used to separate out the different factors contributing to theworker's disability. It is also often based on the premise that workers will lie, andthat those who evaluate the claims will be unable to disprove the right to benefits. The result is the application of rules designed to undercompensate, rather thanto overcompensate. When proof of etiology cannot be scientifically confirmed, mis-takes will be made. The choice of policy-makers is to risk overcompensation insome cases, or to guarantee undercompensation in all cases. Today, in most Canadianjurisdictions, it is impossible to deny that many legitimate claims are being refused,and that policy itself is often to refuse the legitimate claim, sometimes in clearviolation of the letter or the spirit of the statute.

同其他地方一样，在加拿大压力赔偿的问题被赔偿委员会和雇主双方视为怪物。