Well, it's not defined, and it's not an easy.... One of my earlier decisions related to a person who would have been found to have contravened if he had been found to be a friend of a particular person, and I found that he was just a name-dropper, basically, and that the guy wasn't a friend, so he was exonerated.
By the same token, as you may have seen in the Trudeau I report, I had to deal with that issue. I think it's not an easily defined term, and it's a term that can create some embarrassment if somebody says he's your friend and then you determine that he's not a friend, so I always say, “for the purposes of the act”.
I did provide a definition in that initial case. I don't have it in front of me, but it's somebody with a close relationship, perhaps having met in a person's home for dinner, someone who is more than just a passing acquaintance. As I said, there is a very good definition of that, and I should have thought to pull it out, but I don't have it in front of me.