a plain reading of the text nor does a purposive reading of the
statute lead to the conclusion that it was intended so to apply.
 There are advantages to court-appointed receiverships
when contrasted with private receiverships in terms of the benefits of court supervision generally and in terms of the window
given to a broader group of stakeholders upon a process that may
vitally impact their interests. It would be regrettable if courts
should be dissuaded from allowing receivership applications for
fear that an undue benefit might be conferred thereby on a single
class of creditor to the detriment of others. In my view, no such
advantage exists under s. 17 of the Mortgages Act at least.
 I find that the applicants are not entitled to the claimed
three months interest pursuant to s. 17 of the Mortgages Act
or pursuant to the terms of their mortgage contracts with the
 Cost outlines were exchanged following the hearing.
Canada Capital Corporation et al. have been successful on this
motion and are entitled to their costs. Their outline claimed
partial indemnity costs of $10,500.42, substantial indemnity costs
of $13,968.92 and actual costs of $17,437.42 (in each case, “all
inclusive”). These figures included an estimate for the hearing
that was on the high side.
 The unsuccessful applicant provided a costs outline
evidencing partial indemnity costs of $16,859.05 (with a similarly high estimate for the hearing) and full indemnity costs of
 I can see no basis to depart from the scale of partial indemnity costs in this case. The moving party bore the load of making
the argument that was ultimately successful and should be compensated for their costs in doing so. The amount claimed is substantially below the costs incurred by the applicant. I would reduce
the amount claimed to $16,500 to reflect the slightly high estimate
for the hearing.
 The applicants shall pay the costs of Canada Capital
Corporation et al. their partial indemnity costs of this motion
fixed at $16,500.
 Order accordingly.