The definition in the dictionary is “the state of being connected or related”, and there are others. In English “relationship” can mean anything. That's why I oppose Mr. Cotler's suggestion. If I were a judge and it said “relationship”, and then proposed paragraph 34(2)(f.1) said whatever it says, it would indicate to me that you couldn't go past the history of the parties.
We've already heard courts that have interpreted not just the history of the parties as a relationship, but also the reputation, as they understand it, of a certain individual forming part of that relationship, because it's past history. It goes beyond just the history between the two parties.
That's why I oppose that amendment. I think it restricts what we want “relationship” to reflect, which is interaction between two individuals beyond just their immediate interaction or history. It goes to the understanding of that person and who they are.