The Applicant, the mortgagee in a foreclosure Action, sought a Rice Order. The Respondents sought to have the purchase price in the Rice Order set at an earlier, higher, fair market value. The Applicant took the position that any delay should be attributed to the Respondent, and thus the present fair market value should be applied. The Applicant argued, in the alternative, that Rule 1.2 (3) requires all parties to an Action to facilitate the quickest resolution of disputes, so any losses from delay should be shared between the Parties.

The Court held that both parties were equally responsible for the delay. The Court did not apportion the losses due to delay. However, the Court halved the period of delay, to determine what point in time the fair market value should be calculated from. There was a 10 month delay, and the Court added 5 months from when the Rice Application should have been brought to determine the appropriate date to calculate the fair market value.