Again, that's a good question. What's important here, again, is that there needs to be a presumptive judgment that anybody who serves in the Canadian Forces or the RCMP is subject to being hurt by their service; it's the type of work that they do, and that we do, because I was part of it at one time. You know there's going to be an impact on your wellness, and maybe on your health, and on your psychological health as well.
To start from that presumptive judgment that service hurts, then you're already in the right frame of mind and culture to actually look at the evidence in front of you and to say, “Okay, we know that the case in front of us starts there, that people are hurt by service”. The benefit of the doubt, again, is hard to interpret. There is sometimes confusion between the liberal interpretation as is quoted in the act and the benefit of the doubt, but they're one and the same.
I think our legal counsel mentioned that in the benefit of the doubt aspect, you have evidence from both sides, balanced evidence, and then, according to the regulations, you should rule in favour of the applicant. That's not always the case.