a mortgagor upon realization are those spelled out in the mortgage contract,
not in s. 17 of the Mortgages Act.
In the present case, once the respondent mortgagee issued its Notice of
Sale, it was not entitled to demand payment of three months’ interest
under section 17 of the Mortgages Act. It stood in a fundamentally different
position than it did on September 20, 2006 when it provided the applicants
with a discharge statement at their request. Once the respondent issued the
notice of sale, it was required to look to the terms of the Mortgage to ascertain what amounts it could require the mortgagor to pay in order to redeem
the Mortgage. Accordingly, I conclude that once it issued the Notice of Sale
the respondent was not entitled to require the applicants to make a payment under section 17 of the Mortgages Act.
 Counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out that the decision
in Ialongo v. Serm Investments Ltd. is consistent with the traditional notion that if the mortgagee takes the decision out of the
mortgagor’s hands by exercising recourse against the security
the mortgagor can redeem immediately without any bonus
whatsoever. By commencing a sale under power of sale, the
mortgagee takes the repayment decision out of the mortgagor’s
hands. The mortgagee pays for this acceleration by losing its
right to the three-month “bonus”.
 In the present case, and applying the approach taken in
Ialongo v. Serm Investments Ltd., once the defendants issued
their notice of sale they could rely only on the remedies set out
in the mortgage and not on any additional “bonus interest” said
to be owing under s. 17 of the Act.
 The reasoning in the decision in Ialongo was applied
recently by me, sitting as a single judge of the Divisional Court
(see Hornstein v. Orbach,  O.J. No. 2767, 2016 ONSC
1458 (Div. Ct.)). In that case, an appeal from three Small Claims
Court decisions that permitted a mortgagee to charge three
months’ interest for three properties pursuant to notices of
sale and s. 17 of the Act, those decisions were reversed. It was
held that the trial judge had erred in permitting the three-month interest charge because the mortgages at issue had
already matured and were the subject of power of sale proceedings. It was further held that the provisions of s. 17 upon which
the trial judge relied apply only to the rights of a mortgagor
where default in the payment of principal secured by a mortgage
of freehold or leasehold property had occurred prior to maturity
of the mortgage.
 It was further noted in Hornstein v. Orbach that much of
the case law relied on by the Small Claims Court judge involved
mortgage agreements which contained a specific provision
providing for three-month bonus interest. This was not the case