This passage is the source of an approach that has been taken by
some courts of weighing the benefit to the applicant of the modification or discharge of a restrictive covenant against the detriment to the respondent of such a modification or discharge.
 In Ontario Lime Co. (Re),  O.J. No. 505, 
1 D.L.R. 765 (C.A.), the Court of Appeal again addressed the test
to be applied on an application to modify or discharge a restrictive
condition or covenant. Middleton J.A. referred to his decision in
George (Re) and held that “the general balance of convenience
and interest of all those concerned” must be considered. Middle-
ton J.A. wrote [at para. 10] that “the Court should not sanction
the making of an order which would substantially depreciate the
adjacent land”. In addition, however, Middleton J.A. made the fol-
lowing statements which considerably circumscribe the judge’s
exercise of discretion based upon the balance of convenience and
interest of all those concerned [at para. 10]:
It has been more than once pointed out that under this statute there is no
power to make compensation to a landowner who is prejudicially affected,
and the jurisdiction is one to be exercised with the greatest caution, and an
order should seldom, if ever, be made which will in truth operate to the preju-
dice of the adjacent landowner who has any real rights. The true function of
the statute is to enable the Court to get rid of a condition or restriction which
is spent or so unsuitable as to be of no value and under circumstances when
its assertion would be clearly vexatious.
 This passage from the decision in Ontario Lime Co. (Re)
was considered with approval by the Court of Appeal in
Beardmore (Re),  O.R. 526,  O.J. No. 256 (C.A.). Masten J.A.
expressed his opinion that [at para. 24] “the applicant must by
his evidence completely satisfy the Court that if the proposed
modification is allowed the injury to the neighbouring owners,
who object, will be negligible”.
 In Remicorp Industries Inc. v. Metrolinx (2017), 138 O.R.
(3d) 109,  O.J. No. 2805, 2017 ONCA 443, the Court of
Appeal addressed s. 61(1) of the CLPA and observed that it does
not indicate how a court’s discretion is to be exercised. Pepall J.A.
quoted with approval the passages from the decisions of Middleton J.A. in George (Re) and in Ontario Lime Co. (Re) that I have
quoted above. Pepall J.A. held, following Ontario Lime Co. (Re),
that the jurisdiction under s. 61(1) of the CLPA must be exercised
with caution and that an order will be seldom granted if
prejudicial to the adjacent landowner.
 In Silver Seven Corporate Centre Inc. v. 2871220 Canada
Ltd.,  O.J. No. 4651, 2017 ONSC 5091 (S.C.J.), Monahan J.
considered the relevant jurisprudence when he addressed how
a court called upon to decide whether to modify or discharge