creating such large allotments must have been to reduce, if not overcome, the monotony of a symmetrical and even subdivision on a grid plan and to provide at various strategic points in the subdivision much larger allotments, to provide area and space to the smaller allotments in the subdivision, thereby giving the whole area grace and an air of expansiveness, thereby making it an attractive residential setting. The covenant imposed on lot 85 restricting the use of such large allotment to one residence would assist in effectuating such benefits. The object of the restriction, therefore, seems to be that one private dwelling should be placed on a large block of land to ensure large air space being available to the smaller allotments on the subdivision, or, alternatively, if such air space were reduced, it must be by the building of a very large dwelling-house of a prestige kind. Now if these features were the objects of the subdivision and of the restrictive covenant, they may be completely lost by the further subdivision of lot 85. If my analysis of the objects of the subdivision and the imposition of the covenant were wrong, then in any event it would appear that the applicant is merely seeking to do that which the subdivider could have done at the time of his subdivision. The object or purpose of having such a large allotment, without directing attention to whatever may have been originally the [812] desires of the subdivider, will be defeated if the applicant is permitted to divide it into two lots, thereby having two houses upon it. It is obvious the only party to benefit from such modification will be the applicant who, when he required lot 85, must have known of the restrictive covenant. If he obtains the modification, he in effect completely expropriates whatever benefits arose from creation of the large allotments at selected points in the subdivision. The expansive character of the neighbourhood so created by the subdivider must be defeated by the modification. If the various larger allotments are subdivided then it must follow that there will be a greater density of residences, thereby defeating the purposes of the restriction annexed to the large allotment. Mr. Kendall, however, has argued that there has been no objection by any person entitled to benefit of the covenant and the Court should not be astute to protect private rights where the persons entitled thereto themselves show no inclination to protect them. Although there are references in various judgments to this argument which support Mr. Kendall's submission, it, however, cannot be too much relied upon. It is notorious that people generally are loath to come to court unless there should be some patent physical damage to their property or person. Secondly, one cannot be persuaded that in this case all the persons entitled to the benefit have had notice of this application. Thirdly, the onus is on the applicant to establish the reasons for the exercise of the discretion, and the absence of objectors cannot supply any deficiencies in his proof. The application must be dealt with on the material put before the Court. The absence of objectors, in my opinion, affords very little evidence in favour of the application. Mr. Kendall also submitted that what the applicant intends to do is something quite consistent with the character of the neighbourhood. By the new subdivision the applicant merely provides two blocks of approximately the same dimensions as the dimensions of those to which they are adjacent and equal to the standard lots. Whilst this is very true, it seems that what the applicant is seeking to do is to defeat the benefit to the present standard