How have courts interpreted the definition of income sufficient to provide a livelihood?

The applicant contends that the board erred in that it found the applicant’s income insufficient to provide a livelihood. In Hardie v. Lamont No. 30 (County), 1984, chambers (unreported), Madam Justice McFadyen was faced with precisely the same issue and stated: The next issue is whether there was evidence before the board on which the board could have made the finding that “income sufficient to provide a livelihood” was not derived from the lands in question … It appears to me that the duty imposed by statute on the board is to find what income is earned from a particular parcel of land from the evidence before it, and to decide whether such income in fact, in the board’s view, constitutes an income sufficient to provide a livelihood, in the absence of other definitions of that term. While evidence of an expert may be helpful, it is not, in my view, necessary. In the absence of some regulations dealing with that term, it is the board’s interpretation and the board’s standard which must apply to that particular definition.