Yes. If I can speak to the hearing loss policy, there was a case called Nelson. It went up to the higher courts. Nelson was brought to court because it was felt that the hearing loss policy in place at the time was too stringent in that it set the bar very high for what was constituted a loss of hearing, and people felt that it was unfair. They felt that, according to the strict interpretation of what a disability is in the law, any lessening of hearing should constitute a loss, and therefore be something that's pensionable.
The bar was set higher in policy prior to the Nelson case. As a result of that case, the range of what's considered to be normal hearing has changed. Therefore, more people were actually able, after the Nelson decision and after the policy change in the department, to avail themselves of this process. A lot of cases at that time were sent back to the minister to be adjudicated under the new policy because they had all, of course, come forward to the board under the old policy. As this was new policy, it was something new which the department had not yet evaluated these applicants on, and these matters were sent back to be adjudicated at first level, because, of course, the board is an appellate body.