On June 1, 2018, I approved the sale of four of the properties over which the receiver had been appointed and over which
the applicants held first mortgage security. My approval order
included the usual language vesting title in the purchasers, discharging all charges (including mortgages) on the subject properties and providing that the proceeds of the sale would stand in
place of the interests being vested out. The sales of the four properties were completed soon afterwards pursuant to the sale
approval and vesting orders I granted.
 The receivership order and the sale approval and vesting
orders contain no variations from the template orders published
by the Commercial List material to this motion.
 On June 22, 2018, Hainey J. approved a distribution of
funds to the applicants from the proceeds of the sale in the hands
of the receiver. The amount approved was sufficient funds to
repay all amounts due under the subject mortgages subject to
holding back an amount in respect of the disputed claim of the
applicants to receive an additional three months interest under
the terms of their mortgages or s. 17 of the Mortgages Act. That
question was raised before me on this motion.
 Two of the applicants’ mortgages covering the subject properties (High Point and Caldwell) contain no explicit provisions
providing for the claimed three months interest. In those cases,
the applicants’ claim relies solely upon s. 17 of the Mortgages Act.
Two of the mortgages (Bridge and Loyalist) have language in the
mortgage terms that substantially duplicates the language of
s. 17 of the Mortgages Act. In those two cases, the applicants
potentially have two strings to their bow being able to rely either
on the statutory or the contractual language should one be more
favourable to their cause than the other. However, during the
course of argument it was conceded that there was no material
difference to be drawn between the statutory and contractual
language the one intentionally duplicating the effect of the other
in substantially identical terms.
Issues to be Decided
 The sole issue to be decided is whether the applicants are
entitled to three months interest over and above the ordinary
contract interest accrued pursuant to s. 17 of the Mortgages Act.
Discussion and Analysis
 The issue is a narrow one. The starting point for the dis-
cussion is s. 17 of the Mortgages Act, which provides as follows: