The chambers judge properly instructed himself on the effect of the leading case of Anderson v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (1986), 70 B.C.L.R. 267 (B.C.C.A.). The head note sufficiently provides the judicial construction to be given to the word "wilful" in the clause "not guilty of wilful default or delay" in subrule (5) of Rule 52: Rule 52(5) gives the court the power to set aside an ex parte order if it is satisfied that the party failing to attend is not "guilty of wilful delay or default". The phrase "guilty of wilful delay or default" carried with it the sense of a blameworthy action. The failure may be "purposeful, deliberate or intentional" but, depending on the circumstance, it may not be blameworthy. The respondent's failure to oppose the petitions was intentional but not blameworthy. She provided a reasonable explanation for her failure to defend and her affidavit evidence raised an arguable case that ought to be tried.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.