that none of the damage to the property was caused “by an overflow of a river, stream or natural watercourse”.
 The question for the court was whether the loss was cov-
ered by the plaintiff’s insurance policy. That policy contained
wording similar to the policy in our case. The policy stated:
This policy does not insure against loss or damage caused directly or indi-
rectly . . . by flood, and the word “flood” includes waves, tides, tidal waves,
and the rising of, the breaking out or the overflow of, any body of water,
whether natural or man made . . .
(d)( i) by seepage, leakage or influx of water derived from natural sources
through the basement wall, doors, windows or other openings therein[.]
 Anderson J. concluded that the damage had been caused
by a flood within the meaning of that term in the insurance
policy, and was therefore covered by the exclusion. He stated:
Taking the word in its ordinary meaning I would have no hesitation in
concluding that the incident described . . . comprised a flood. It is to be noted
that among the definitions contained in the Shorter Oxford English Diction-
ary (1933 Edition) is the following: “a profuse and violent outpouring of
water, a swollen stream, a violent downpour of rain.”
 Parker argues that if I adopt this reasoning, the incident
in our case would be excluded by clause 6B(b) of the insurance
policy, but then covered by the flood endorsement.
 The difficulty with this argument is that the definition
of flood in the T & T case used the phrase “the word ‘flood’
includes”, while the clauses in our case uses the phrase “Flood
means”, and the difference between “includes” and “means” is
significant. Anderson J. concluded that the word “includes” was
intended to be non-exhaustive. While sometimes the term
“includes” is intended to precede a list that is complete and
exhaustive (see Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps,  A.C.
99 (P.C.), at pp. 105-106; R. v. Loblaw Groceteria Co. (Manitoba),
 S.C.R. 138,  S.C.J. No. 73; Canada 3000 Inc., Re;
Inter-Canadian (1991) Inc. (Trustee of),  1 S.C.R. 865,
 S.C.J. No. 24, 2006 SCC 24, at paras. 47-50), it is gener-
ally used to indicate that what follows are examples rather than
an exhaustive list. That latter interpretation was adopted by
Anderson J. in T & T, at para. 8: “There is no such basis for
interpretation here and the specified categories of flood are not
 In contrast, the word “means”, which is used in the policy
at issue in this case, “generally precedes a definition to be con-
strued as exhaustive” (Canada 3000, at para. 46).