Does the phrase “not guilty of wilful delay or default” carry with it the concept of blameworthiness?

The phrase “not guilty of wilful delay or default” carries with it the concept of blameworthiness. If a party is blameworthy in their failure to attend, the order will not be set aside. This interpretation of the rule was set out in Anderson v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (1986), 70 B.C.L.R. 267 (C.A.) at 270: … In my opinion, the phrase “guilty of wilful delay or default” carries with it the sense of a blameworthy action. The word “guilty” likewise emphasizes that the person who delayed or defaulted or both must be one deserving of blame and of the consequent penalty of not being heard on the merits of the application. Among other things, if satisfactory explanations are given for the delay and the default, then it is open to the court to reconsider whether there is any merit in the defence. The failure may have been “purposeful, deliberate or intentional” but, depending on the circumstance, it may not be blameworthy.