It is provided in Ontario by rule 484 as follows:

484.- (1) Where the state of the account ascertained by a judgment order or report is changed before the final order is obtained, the mortgagee may either before or after the day appointed for payment apply ex parte to fix, by reference to a master or otherwise, the amount to be paid in lieu of the amount previously ascertained or where the day appointed for payment has not arrived may give notice to the party by whom the money is payable that he gives him credit for a sum certain, to be named in the notice, and that he claims that there remains due in respect of such mortgage money a sum certain, to be also named in the notice.

(2) Where the application is made after the day appointed for payment, and in other cases if so desired, a new day for payment shall be appointed.

(3) Where notice of credit has been given, if the sums named therein appear proper to be allowed and paid, the final order may be granted without further notice; but the party to whom the notice of credit is given may apply to fix, by reference to a master or otherwise, the amounts proper to be allowed and paid instead of the amounts mentioned in the notice.

Before a final order of foreclosure is made, the mortgagor is entitled to know how much he must pay in order to redeem. The modes in which that amount may be ascertained, if there has been a change of account since the report, are indicated in rule 484, and it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to state on affidavit that the payments made by him for taxes and costs have more than exhausted the rents received since the date of the report (q).

Real Property Act of Manitoba expressed in terms similar to the relieving provision of the acceleration clause contained in schedule B to the Short Forms of Mortgages Act. As to this relieving provision, see chapter 23, Action on the Covenant, Sec. 226. See also Thomson v. Willson, 1915, 51 Can. S.C.R. 307, 23 D.L.R. 468, varying Will-son v. Thomson, 1914, 31 O.L.R. 471, 19 D.L.R. 593

(o) Wilson v. Campbell, 1893, 15 O.P.R. 254.

(p) Todd v. Linklater, 1901, 1 O.L.R. 103. See chapter 23, Sec. 226.

A mortgagee obtained an order nisi for foreclosure. After the order had been made he, under the terms of the mortgage, paid a further sum for taxes. There was, however, no evidence that such payment was necessary to protect the security. He now applied for an order increasing the amount to be paid under redemption, and fixing a new date for redemption. The mortgagor had been served, but did not appear. It was held that as the mortgagor had not appeared and would in any event be required to pay the taxes and as reasonableness and convenience should be the basis of practice an order should be made for a new account and a new date for redemption, and that as it had not been shown that the payment of taxes was necessary to protect the security and as the mortgagee could have insisted upon payment before redemption, the costs of the application should be borne by the mortgagee (r).