Can a party intentionally refrain from appearing on a notice of motion and instead come along later, at his own convenience, and insist on having the motion reheard?

It cannot be the case that a party who is duly served with a notice of motion can intentionally refrain from appearing on the return of the motion and instead come along later, at his own convenience, and insist on having the motion reheard, even though an order was made against him at the original hearing. Mr. Justice Hutcheon’s reasons do not suggest otherwise. So “blameworthy” in the sense in which it is used in Anderson v. T.D. Bank must extend to that kind of conduct, though it does not extend to all intentional delays or defaults. The facts of Anderson v. T.D. Bank reveal the kind of cases where the respondent on the motion may have intentionally failed to appear but where that intentional failure was not blameworthy.