I will respond in English because my response was prepared.
The concept of benefit of the doubt is enshrined in subsection 5(3) of the Pension Act, section 43 of the NVC, section 35 of the War Veterans Allowance Act, as well as in section 39 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act.
It's applied where it's not practical to determine an issue because the evidence for or against the issue is approximately equal in weight. The issue shall be resolved in favour of the person claiming the benefits. The doubt, however, must be reasonable and derived from a careful analysis of the evidence. The evidence would include witness statements, documents and reports, as well as medical information.
Every reasonable inference will be drawn and any reasonable doubt will be resolved in favour of the applicant. The decision, however, must still be in accordance with the real merits and the justice of the case. It should be applied when the facts of the case are so evenly balanced that a clear decision is impossible. The decision-maker has the obligation to allocate the appropriate weight to the relevant facts in the exercise of the judgment. Benefit of the doubt is not to be used as a substitute for evidence. It is to be applied when the facts of the case are so evenly balanced that a clear decision is impossible. It's a fifty-fifty and you render a decision in favour of the applicant.