Indeed, in O’Shanter Development Co. v. Gentra Canada
Investments Inc., Rosenberg J. dissented on that point. Relying
on Shankman v. Mutual Life Assurance Co. of Canada (1985),
52 O.R. (2d) 65, 1985 CanLII 2196 (C.A.), Rosenberg J. agreed
with the principle that not only can a mortgagee not assert his
option to prevent redemption but he cannot impose a penalty on
redemption by contract. In his view, service of a notice of sale
triggers the right to redeem without such a penalty.
 In this case, the notice of sale was served by the mortgagee to exercise recourse against the security after the mortgage
had matured. In my view, a proper interpretation of s. 17 of
the Act does not permit the defendants to tack on an extra three
months’ interest to the other amounts owing under the mortgage. In my opinion, the plaintiff’s arguments therefore should
 For these reasons, the plaintiff is entitled to summary
judgment against the defendants in the amount equivalent to
three months’ interest, as paid by it under protest, together with
interest in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. C.43.
 In view of this determination, the argument based on s. 8
of the Interest Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-15 need not be addressed.
 If the subject of costs cannot be agreed upon, written
submissions may be delivered by the plaintiff within 20 days of
the date of this decision, and by the defendants within 20 days
Plaintiff’s motion granted.