What action does a mortgagee in purchasing the mortgaged property at a tax sale place him in the position of holding the title, which he subsequently procures, subject to the right of the mortgagor to redeem?

I must say I have great difficulty in reaching a conclusion as to what action on the part of a mortgagee in purchasing the mortgaged property at a tax sale should place him in the position of holding the title, which he subsequently procures, subject to the right of the mortgagor to redeem. I can understand that by some dealing with the mortgagor he may preclude himself from being able to say that the equity of redemption of the mortgagor does not exist, but, apart from this consideration, if a sale by the municipality is a proper one, and if the mortgagee buys, as any other person might properly buy, it surely cannot be sufficient to say that a mortgagee, merely because he buys in order to protect his security, is in any worse position than that of a stranger. See also Beams v. Stewart, 1914 CanLII 719 (BC SC), 20 B.C.R. 450, 7 W.W.R. 170.

Where a first mortgagee exercises his power of sale and a second mortgagee becomes the purchaser at the sale he obtains, in the absence of special circumstances, the same absolute and irredeemable title as a stranger purchasing obtains. Shaw v. Bunny, 2 DeG. J. & S. 468, 34 L.J. Ch. 257. I can see no reason why a mortgagee purchasing at a tax sale should not be in the same position as that of a second mortgagee purchasing at a sale held by the first mortgagee, for taxes in arrears constitute by statute a first charge upon the land prior to all other encumbrances.