What role does ordination play in defining the term "clergy"?

More recently, Bowman J. in Kraft v. Canada, [1999] T.C.J. No. 31 (T.C.C.), commented on the role that ordination takes with respect to defining the term "clergy" for the purpose of paragraph 8(1)(c). He stated at paragraph 9 that: Whether one is a member of the clergy or a regular minister of a religious denomination depends upon the practices of the particular denomination. There seems to be an assumption, unwarranted in my view, that to be a member of the "clergy" the particular denomination must call the ceremony whereby the person is set apart spiritually "ordination". This faith in the power of words to create reality is misplaced. I should have thought that what matters to whether a person is a member of the clergy is what he or she is, not what the particular denomination calls the ceremony whereby the person gets there. The ritual whereby one becomes a minister or a person set apart from the laity as a spiritual leader in a particular church may not in all cases be called ordination. The argument for restricting the term "clergy" to persons who are "ordained" seems to be premised on a requirement not only that there be a formal ceremony investing the person with the trappings and accoutrements, tangible and intangible, of spiritual superiority appropriate to the particular church, but also that the church call the ritual "ordination".