“It is difficult to imagine any tax-payer funded judge would allow that much paper or oral argument on this type of case. After all, the Supreme Court of Canada limits oral arguments in Charter matters to one hour for the parties.”

For example, the costs decision in Conway v. Zinkhofer, 2007 ABQB 2 at 24 refers to a simple trial on quantification that was conflated (by the self-represented Defendants who was a disbarred lawyer) into a 6 week trial with a further week of argument.

It is also not just unrepresented defendants who can enjoy this latitude. I recall one civil trial where a criminal lawyer was allowed to advance a completely bizarre interpretation of some settled point at great length. The trial justice after listening for a short period of time - responded to the lawyers argument with a warning but then allowed that lawyer to proceed at length in his arguments for the better part of a day.

Prolix and pointless argument are a form of breach of duty towards the Court (i.e. Chapter 9 of the Canadian Bar Association) and can form the base for cost awards: Markdale Limited v. Ducharme, 1998 ABQB 758 - which the justice did in that particular case in awarding costs against the barrister involved.

Simply put, I would suggest that trial justices will go to extreme lengths to allow litigants to “speak their piece”. This involves justices secure in their control of the courtroom by way of subtle and no so subtle warnings, all backed by cost awards and contempt proceedings if necessary.

I would agree that appellate courts are more strict in allowing oral and written arguments - but that is their role.