Our recommendations targeted two areas. The first is the liberal interpretation of evidence. A section in the act states that the evidence must be construed liberally. At the court level and even during the adjudication process, application of the benefit of the doubt has always been a major topic of discussion.
I'll give you an example of liberal interpretation. Let's assume those involved in the adjudication process or the board members have uncontradicted evidence before them. In other words, there is no other evidence contradicting it. In such a case, those handling adjudication should interpret the act liberally because there is nothing to refute the piece of evidence before them.
It is also important to start from the premise that, in 90% of cases, the military or RCMP service affects the member and their family. It affects their well-being; it causes illness or injury. So if you're working from that premise and an injury is proven to be service-related, you should interpret the evidence liberally and render a favourable decision.
However, in situations where conflicting evidence exists, the benefit of the doubt must be applied. When you are confronted with two pieces of conflicting evidence and the decision rests on the benefit of the doubt, you must, under the act, render a decision in favour of the applicant.
I would ask my legal counsel to provide some clarification on the concept of the benefit of the doubt.