R. v. Pick

R. v. Pick Court Supreme Court Date 2025-09-02 Citation 2025 NSSC 279 Docket Ken, No. 542800 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Gatchalian, Gail L. (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Decision Content SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: R. v. Pick, 2025 NSSC 279 Date: 20250902 Docket: Ken, No. 542800 Registry: Kentville His Majesty the King v. Larry Malcolm Pick Decision: Application under s.11(b) of the Charter Judge: The Honourable Justice Gail L. Gatchalian Heard: July 24, 2025, in Kentville, Nova Scotia Oral Decision: September 2, 2025, in Kentville, Nova Scotia Counsel: Michael Taylor, for the Crown Michael Curry, for the Larry Malcolm Pick By the Court: Introduction [1] Larry Malcolm Pick (“Larry Pick”) stands charged by Indictment with the following three offences, alleged to have occurred on or about November 22, 2022, at or near White Rock in Kings County: (1) possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s.5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; (2) careless storage of a firearm (three rifles), contrary to s.86(1) of the Criminal Code; and (3) possession of a firearm (twelve rifles and shotguns) without a license, contrary to s.91(1) of the Code. His trial is scheduled to take place before me on September 11 and 12, 2025. He has brought an application under s.11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of

his right to be tried within a reasonable time. He seeks a stay of proceedings against him. I heard the application on July 24, 2025. I gave the parties my “bottom line” decision in a letter dated August 6, 2025, dismissing the application, with detailed reasons to follow. These are my reasons. Assessing Breaches of s.11(b) of the Charter [2] Section 11(b) of the Charter guarantees accused persons in Canada the right to trial in a reasonable time. As Gogan J.A. recently noted, writing for the Court of Appeal in R. v. Zaki, 2025 NSCA 63, complacency is the antithesis of this Charter protected right: at para.1. [3] In R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, the Supreme Court of Canada introduced a new analytical framework for assessing delay in criminal proceedings: see Zaki at para.2. The goal of the new framework is a culture change supported by the imposition of ceilings beyond which the length of trial delay is presumed unreasonable: ibid. This outer limit is referred as the “presumptive ceiling.” For matters tried in superior courts, the presumptive ceiling is 30 months. A delay above this ceiling is presumptively unreasonable: see Jordan at paras.5 and 46; and R. v. Ellis, 2020 NSCA 78 at para.2. Exceeding the ceiling presumes prejudice to the liberty, security, and fair trial interests of the accused person: Zaki at para.2., citing Jordan at para.54. One of the objectives of this new

approach is to “enhance accountability by fostering proactive, preventative problem solving”: ibid, citing Jordan at para.112. [4] In Ellis, the Court of Appeal identified the fundamental principles of the Jordan framework: [3] . . .Whether the “presumptive ceiling” has been exceeded involves calculating the total delay from the date an accused is charged to the end of evidence and submissions (R. v. K.G.K., 2020 SCC 7, at para. 31) minus delay that can be attributed to the defence (Jordan, at para. 47). Defence delay may be the result of waiver and/or defence conduct. If the net delay (total delay less defence delay) exceeds the presumptive ceiling, then exceptional circumstances, complexity or the transitional nature of the case may justify the delay. [Zaki at para.11, citing Ellis at paras.2-3, some citations omitted] [5] Delay attributable to the defence is subtracted from the total delay because “[t]he defence should not be allowed to benefit from its own delay-causing conduct”: Jordan at para.60. “Defence actions legitimately taken to respond to the charges do not constitute defence delay”: Jordan at para 66; and see R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 311 at para.30. [6] The defence will have directly caused the delay if the court and the Crown are ready to proceed, but the defence is not. However, there is no “bright‑line” rule according to which all of the delay until the next

available date following defence counsel’s rejection of a date offered by the court must be characterized as defence delay. Rather, all relevant circumstances should be considered to determine how delay should be apportioned among the participants: R. v. Hanan, 2023 SCC 12 at para.9, citing R. v. Boulanger, 2022 SCC 2 at para.8. See also R. v. R.A., 2019 NSSC 404 (Muise J.) at para.39. Periods of time during which the court and the Crown are unavailable will not constitute defence delay, even if defence counsel is also unavailable: Jordan at para.64. [7] If the remaining delay falls below the ceiling, the accused may still demonstrate in clear cases that the delay is unreasonable: Jordan at para.76. To do so, the defence must establish two things: (1) it took meaningful steps that demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings; and (2) the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have: Jordan at para.105. Calculation of Total Delay [8] Larry Pick and his co-accused, Arthur Malcolm Pick, were charged by Information sworn on December 13, 2022. [9] The presumptive 30-month ceiling is June 13, 2025, or 914 days. [10] The Crown recently severed the accused. [11] Larry Pick’s trial is scheduled to take place before me on September 11, 2025 (half a day) and September 12, 2025 (full day). The total delay, including the end date of September 12, 2025, will be 1005

days. The anticipated end of the trial on September 12, 2025 will be 91 days after the presumptive ceiling. Position of the Parties [12] The Defence position is that there has been no defence-caused delay that should be subtracted from the overall delay. The Defence did not take the position that, even if the remaining delay falls below the presumptive ceiling, the delay is unreasonable. [13] The Crown position is that 146 days are directly attributable to defence delay, bringing the matter under the 30-month presumptive ceiling. The Crown did not argue in the alternative that exceptional circumstances, complexity or the transitional nature of the case justified the delay. Procedural History Initial Appearances: February 8, March 8, April 11, May 9, 2023 [14] The accused first appeared in Provincial Court on February 8, 2023. The Federal Crown did not appear. The Provincial Court judge asked that the Provincial Crown present in court at that time stand in as agent for the matter and update the Federal Crown afterwards. The judge asked, “I’m assuming you’re going to want to speak to a lawyer about this matter?” Arthur Pick responded, “correct.” Larry Pick responded, “I haven’t done anything wrong, but I suppose so.” The judge adjourned the matter for one month to March 8, 2023, stating “… that will give you time to discuss it with a lawyer, or have a lawyer speak to the matter

when you come back, because I’d like you to have that opportunity.” [15] On March 8, 2023, the Federal Crown did not appear. The Provincial Court judge again asked that the Provincial Crown present in court at that time stand in as agent for the Federal Crown. The judge asked Larry Pick and Arthur Pick, “So what’s happening is, you say you’re trying to find a lawyer?” The transcript reflects that only Arthur Pick responded, stating, “Yes.” The judge then asked, “You’ve made your applications?” Again, the transcript reflects that only Arthur Pick responded, stating, “Yeah.” The judge asked “Okay, but you haven’t heard back.” The transcript reflects that only Arthur Pick responded, stating, “No.” After Arthur Pick stated that he had an upcoming lawyer’s appointment, the judge adjourned the matter to April 11, 2023. [16] On April 11, 2023, the Provincial Court judge noted that the matter was set over to see if Larry Pick and Arthur Pick would have lawyers representing them. Arthur Pick informed the judge that he had not yet had an intake call with Nova Scotia Legal Aid. The judge asked Larry Pick, “what is your situation with respect to counsel.” Larry Pick answered, “I’m just tied in whatever is going on with him, because it’s my house.” The judge asked Larry Pick, “Are you looking for a lawyer for yourself?” Larry Pick answered, “We’re being charged together, so I assumed that I

would get a lawyer just for the both of us.” The judge informed Larry Pick that this is not the way it works, and that he should apply for Legal Aid as well, if he thinks he qualifies, because one lawyer cannot represent both of them. The judge stated, “Larry Pick I would encourage you to make an application for Legal Aid for yourself.” Larry Pick responded, “okay.” The judge set the matter over to May 9, 2023, and stated to both accused, “You should move on those applications today, though, okay?” [17] On May 9, 2023, Mike Taylor was present for the Federal Crown. The two accused appeared. Lawyer David Hirtle appeared for Arthur Pick. Mr. Hirtle requested an adjournment to June 7, 2023. Mr. Hirtle did not state the reason for the adjournment request, apart from stating that this was his first appearance as counsel of record. Mr. Hirtle was not asked the reason for the adjournment request. Larry Pick had not yet retained counsel. Mr. Hirtle stated that, “for the purposes of Jordan, if Mr. Larry Pick is going to retain counsel, it would be certainly my request that he take steps prior to that June 7 day.” Mr. Taylor stated, “on the last appearance, … Mr. Larry Pick was advised by Her Honour that he should get separate counsel, because he seemed to be under the impression he could have the same lawyer,” and that “I have the same concerns as Mr. Hirtle voiced in terms of Jordan,

so hopefully Mr. Larry Pick, if he’s going to need counsel, he will take some steps prior to June 7th in order to do that.” [18] The judge adjourned the matter to June 7, 2023. Next Set of Appearance in Provincial Court: June 6 and July 4, 2023 [19] For some reason, Mr. Hirtle and Mr. Taylor appeared next on June 6, 2023, and not June 7, 2023. Neither Larry Pick nor Arthur Pick was present. Mr. Hirtle asked that the matter be adjourned to July 4, 2023. Mr. Hirtle did not state the reason for the adjournment request, and he was not asked for the reason. Mr. Taylor agreed to the adjournment request. [20] There is no endorsement and no transcript for June 7, 2023. However there is an email from court staff to Mr. Taylor and Mr. Hirtle, dated June 7, 2023 and attached to the Information, which states that the staff member spoke to Larry Pick on the phone that morning, and that Larry Pick would attend on July 4, 2023. [21] On July 4, 2023, Mr. Hirtle appeared for Arthur Pick. He had not filed a designation, and Arthur Pick was not present. Larry Pick appeared again without counsel. Mr. Taylor was present. Mr. Hirtle asked for an adjournment. Mr. Hirtle did not state the reason for the adjournment request, and he was not asked for the reason. Mr. Hirtle asked the court to determine whether Larry Pick intended to retain counsel. [22] The judge asked Larry Pick if he had had a chance

to get in touch with a lawyer. Larry Pick responded, “I don’t have a lawyer, no.” The judge asked, “Do you plan on getting one?” Larry Pick responded, “I guess I’ll have to.” The judge asked whether he had taken any steps to retain a lawyer. Larry Pick responded, “Apparently, I earn too much money to go through Legal Aid,” and that “I wouldn’t even know who to contact.” The judge adjourned election and plea to give Larry Pick further time to retain a lawyer, and suggested he contact the Nova Scotia Barrister’s Society. The judge adjourned the matter to August 1, 2023, almost one month later. [23] Mr. Taylor stated that, “given the Jordan issue that we’re dealing with, especially lately … Lary Pick has indicated on a couple of occasions already that he doesn’t have a lawyer, and feels that he doesn’t need one, or he hasn’t done anything wrong,” and that “it doesn’t sound like he’s done anything at this point to get a lawyer, and the Crown is concerned that, if we just come back again and Mr. Pick once again says I don’t have a lawyer and I didn’t do anything wrong, we’re getting further and further down the road and the Jordan clock is ticking, so hopefully, something will be done on the next appearance or, you know, the Court may be requested to make the election for Mr. Pick, unfortunately.” The judge then directed Larry Pick to make efforts to get a lawyer. Mr. Hirtle then

stated that he echoed the comments of the Federal Crown. August 1, 2023: Preliminary Inquiry Scheduled for July 17, 2024 [24] On August 1, 2023, Mr. Hirtle appeared for Arthur Pick and lawyer Michael Curry appeared for Larry Pick. Mr. Hirtle, on behalf of Arthur Pick, elected trial by a judge alone in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, with a Preliminary Inquiry. Mr. Curry, on behalf of Larry Pick, also elected trial by judge alone trial in the Supreme Court. [25] The following table summarizes the dates offered for the Preliminary Inquiry, and counsel’s respective availability for each date offered: Dates Offered Mr. Curry’s availability Crown’s availability Mr. Hirtle’s availability February 22, 2024 Available Not Available Not Available April 2, 2024 Available Available Not Available June 19, 2024 Available Available Not Available June 24, 2024 Available Available Not Available July 3, 2024 Available Available Not Available July 4, 2024 Available Available Not Available July 11, 2024 Available Available Not Available July 17, 2024 Available Available Available [26] The judge scheduled a one-day Preliminary Inquiry to take place on July 17, 2024. [27] The judge set October 31, 2023 as the deadline for filing statements of issues and witnesses. April 9, 2024: Court Advises July 17, 2024 Not Available [28] On March 22, 2024, the matter was scheduled to return on April 9, 2024, at

the Crown’s request, to set a date for a focus hearing to narrow down the issues and list of witnesses for the Preliminary Inquiry scheduled for July 17, 2024. [29] Although April 9, 2024 was scheduled at the Crown’s request to set a date for a focus hearing, the judge informed the parties on that date as follows: “So unfortunately, there’s no court that day, so the July 17th date is no longer available. We will need to find a new date.” There is no explanation as to why July 17, 2024 was no longer available for the Preliminary Inquiry, nor as to why eight months passed before the parties were informed on the record that the date was no longer available. Mr. Curry informed the judge that Larry Pick was being “pulled into the preliminary inquiry due to the election of Mr. Arthur Pick,” and that he had “no intention of filing anything for the preliminary,” and would simply “attend and observe.” [30] Before dates were canvassed, Mr. Taylor invited the Court to find an early date, or a date to double-book against something else, given his understanding that they might be looking at May of next year. The following table summarizes the dates offered for the rescheduled Preliminary Inquiry, and counsel’s respective availability: Dates Offered Mr. Curry’s availability Crown’s availability Mr. Hirtle’s availability January 20, 2025 Available Available Not Available January 24,

2025 Available Available Not Available Mr. Hirtle unavailable from January 17, 2025 – February 14, 2025 February 21, 2025 Available Available Not Available February 28, 2025 Available Available Available [31] The Preliminary Inquiry was rescheduled to February 28, 2025. The focus hearing was scheduled to take place on May 27, 2024. Alarm bells should have been ringing for everyone at that point. The Preliminary Inquiry, rescheduled to February 28, 2025, would be taking place two years and two months post-Information, with four months left on the Jordan clock. No one, however, noted the urgency of the situation. [32] The endorsements on the Information contain a second entry for April 9, 2024, as follows: 28 Feb 2024 date in Windsor no longer available, must re-schedule at 27 May focus hearing date, for full day prelim needed. [33] The endorsement does not contain an explanation as to why February 28, 2024 was “no longer available” for the Preliminary Inquiry. April 11, 2024: Preliminary Inquiry Rescheduled to April 15, 2025 [34] The matter returned on April 11, 2024, at which time the judge informed the parties that “unfortunately, our docket just had not got updated, so that date that we originally set for this matter, February 28, 2025, in Windsor for the full day is not a date that actually was available, so we need to find a new date.” [35] The following table summarizes

the dates offered for the rescheduled Preliminary Inquiry, and counsel’s respective availability: Dates Offered Mr. Curry’s availability Crown’s availability Mr. Hirtle’s availability Jun 5, 2024 (1/2 day) Not Available (in trial) Not canvassed Not Available May 26, 2025 Available Not canvassed Available March 24, 2025 Available Not canvassed Not Available March 25, 2025 Available Not canvassed Not Available April 14, 2025 Available Not canvassed Not Available April 15, 2025 Available Available Available [36] The Preliminary Inquiry was rescheduled to April 15, 2025, 28 months into the Jordan clock. No one noted this fact, and the extreme urgency of the situation, during the April 11, 2025 appearance. Appearances In Between April 11, 2024 and the Preliminary Inquiry [37] There were several appearances in the year between April 11, 2024 and the Preliminary Inquiry on April 15, 2025: • May 27, 2024: This date was originally scheduled for the focus hearing. Only Mr. Hirtle and Mr. Taylor were present. The focus hearing was adjourned to June 6, 2024, on the consent of Mr. Hirtle and the Crown. • June 6, 2024: Mr. Hirtle filed his notice of witnesses and issues and indicated that committal was not at issue. Mr. Curry was present, but Larry Pick was not, and there was no designation on file. Mr. Curry did not intend to file a notice of witnesses and issues, but did not have

instructions as to whether committal was at issue. The Crown stated that it needed to know Larry Pick’s position on committal, and Mr. Curry agreed. The focus hearing was scheduled to continue on July 2, 2024. • July 2, 2024: Mr. Curry confirmed that committal would not be an issue. The Preliminary Inquiry was confirmed for April 15, 2025. [38] None of the three above-noted appearances had the effect of further delaying the Preliminary Inquiry scheduled for April 15, 2025. More importantly, though, no one raised the urgency of the impending Jordan ceiling at any of these appearances, or made any efforts to find an earlier date for the Preliminary Inquiry. The Crown did not sever, or prefer a Direct Indictment. Preliminary Inquiry: April 15, 2025 [39] The Preliminary Inquiry was held on April 15, 2025. Mr. Curry did not attend. [40] At the end of the Preliminary Inquiry, the Court contacted Mr. Curry by video to schedule the accused’s first appearance in Supreme Court. The first appearance in Supreme Court was scheduled for May 2, 2025 at 8:30 a.m., over two weeks later, at the request of counsel. [41] Mr. Hirtle requested that the court prepare a transcript of the Preliminary Inquiry, and Mr. Curry asked for a digital copy. No one asked that the transcript be prepared on a rush basis, or took it upon themselves to request the audio recording on a rush basis and have the

transcript prepared on an urgent basis. First Appearance in Supreme Court: May 2, 2025 [42] At the first appearance in Supreme Court on May 2, 2025, I confirmed with counsel that the presumptive 30-month Jordan ceiling was June 13, 2025. [43] Both accused were arraigned, and not guilty pleas entered. [44] In compliance with the request of the court in advance of the appearance, the Crown and Mr. Curry filed their Pre-Trial Conference Reports before the May 2, 2025 appearance. Mr. Hirtle did not. [45] The Crown intended to bring one pre-trial application: a voluntariness application concerning a verbal utterance of Arthur Pick to a person in authority. The Crown stated that the voluntariness voir dire would require approximately a ½ day of hearing time. Given the impending Jordan ceiling, I determined that the voluntariness voir dire could be held at the beginning of the trial. [46] Mr. Hirtle stated that he could not file the Pre-Trial Conference report or decide whether his client would bring any Charter applications because they did not yet have the transcript of the Preliminary Inquiry. Counsel confirmed that no one requested the audio recording of transcripts on an urgent basis. [47] I stated that it was difficult to understand how Mr. Hirtle’s client could not identify whether he would be bringing any Charter applications because: 1. Mr. Hirtle was retained on or about May 9, 2023.

2. Arthur Pick elected trial by Supreme Court judge alone on August 1, 2023.

3. The focus hearing took place on July 2, 2024.

4. The Preliminary Inquiry hearing took place on April 15, 2025, just two weeks previously, and should be fresh in everyone’s mind, and counsel should have taken notes. [48] I stated that, given the above, the presumptive Jordan ceiling, and the court’s case management duty as set out Jordan and Cody, I was going to set trial dates, and if Mr. Hirtle filed a Notice of Charter Application, we would fit it in. [49] The only pre-trial application identified by Mr. Curry in the Pre-Trial Conference Report for Larry Pick was a potential s.11(b) Application, depending on when the trial dates were set. [50] Counsel agreed that two days would be required for the trial. [51] The following dates were canvassed for the trial: Dates Offered Mr. Curry’s availability Crown’s availability Mr. Hirtle’s availability 2025 May 7, 2025 starting at 11 a.m. Not canvassed Not available Not canvassed May 9, 2025 full day Not available Available - would have to confirm if witnesses available Not available May 13, 14, 15, 2025 May 13 - available pm May 14 – not available May 15 - available at 9:45 am Available - would have to confirm if witnesses available Not available May 21, 2025 starting at 10:30 am Not Available Available Not available June 10, 12, 13, 2025 Not available (June 10 – trial prep) June 10, 12 - Not Available June 13 - available June 10 – available June 12 - Not available June 13 – Bar

Council – might be able to make work June 23, 2025, 2 p.m. Not available Available Not available Sept. 11, 12, 2025 Available Available Not available Sept. 18, 19, 22, 2025 Available Available Not available Oct. 22, 23, 24, 2025 Available Available Not available Nov. 4, 5, 6, 7, 2025 Available Nov. 4, 6 and 7 - Available Nov. 5 – not available Nov. 4, 5 and 6 - Not available Nov. 7, 2025 - available Nov. 10, 12, 13, 14, 2025 Available Nov. 10 – Not Available Nov. 12, 13, 14 - Available Not Available 2026 Jan. 28, 29, 30, 2026 Jan 28 – not available Jan 29, 30 - available Available Available Feb. 4, 5, 6, 2026 Available Available Available [52] I scheduled the trial to take place on February 4 and 5, 2026. [53] Now that the trial dates were set beyond the 30-month presumptive ceiling, Mr. Curry was to obtain instructions from his client as to whether to bring a s.11(b) Application. Mr. Curry was to do so by Wednesday, May 7, 2025, when this matter was scheduled to return for a further Pre-Trial Conference. [54] I stated that Mr. Curry’s client’s concerns about delay could be resolved if his trial proceeded on May 13 and 15, 2025, when both the Crown and Mr. Curry were available (subject to the Crown confirming witness availability). However, I stated that this could only occur if the accused were severed, and that severance was up to the Crown. Second Appearance in Supreme

Court: May7, 2025 [55] The following occurred at the May 7, 2025 Pre-Trial Conference: • The Crown had not yet decided whether to sever the accused so that Larry Pick’s trial might proceed before the February, 2026 trial dates. • The Court re-canvassed the following dates for the trial of Larry Pick, should the Crown decide to sever: May 13 and 15, 2025. • The Crown was available on the May dates, although it had not yet advised whether its witnesses could be available for those dates. • Mr. Curry was available starting at 11:00 a.m. on May 13. As of the last appearance, he had been available on May 15, 2025, but in the meantime scheduled a trial on the afternoon of May 15. Mr. Curry advised that the trial he scheduled on May 15, 2025 had potential Jordan issues. • The Crown advised that, if it severed the accused, the trial for Larry Pick should only take one day. • Mr. Curry advised that his client had decided to file a s.8 Charter Application. • The Crown and Mr. Curry advised that the trial and s.8 Charter Application could be heard together. • Mr. Curry advised that he could not be ready for the application and trial in time for May 13 and 15, 2025. • When the Court asked Mr. Curry to hold June 10th as well, Mr. Curry stated that he could not, as he required that date for trial preparation. • The Court required that the Crown and Mr. Curry hold the following dates for the

trial of Larry Pick, should the Crown decide to sever the accused: September 11 and 12, 2025. • Mr. Curry had set at trial that morning for September 11, but would try to move it, as there was a waiver of delay in that case. • Mr. Curry advised that he had instructions to file a s.11(b) Charter Application on behalf of Larry Pick. He had not yet requested the audio recordings of the court appearances. • I scheduled Larry Pick’s s.11(b) Charter Application to be heard on July 24, 2025 starting at 9:30 a.m., for half a day. • I scheduled a further Pre-Trial Conference on May 13, 2025. Third Appearance in Supreme Court: May 13, 2025 [56] The following occurred at the May 13, 2025 Pre-Trial Conference: • The Crown advised that he had decided to sever the accused so that Larry Pick’s trial could proceed on September 11 and 12, 2025. • Mr. Hirtle, on behalf of Arthur Pick, objected and took the position that the Crown must make a formal motion. • I stated that my view was that the Crown had the common law right to sever accused, without having to make a formal application to sever. • I directed that the September 11 and 12, 2025 hearing dates continue to be held for the trial of Larry Pick, and set deadlines for briefs as to whether the Crown has the common law right to sever accused persons without having to make a formal application. • Mr. Curry advised that, because of his ethical

obligations to his other client, he did not think it appropriate to request that the Provincial Court reschedule the trial he had on the morning of September 11, 2025. • I confirmed the following trial dates for Larry Pick: September 11, 2025, starting at 2:00 p.m. and September 12, 2025, starting at 9:30 a.m. for the full day. • Mr. Curry confirmed that he had requested the audio recordings for the previous court appearances, and that he would request transcripts on a rush basis. • Mr. Curry informed the Court that he would be out of the country from June 21 to July 7, 2025, and not returning to court until July 14, 2025. • Mr. Curry advised that Larry Pick would not be bringing a s.8 Charter application because he had reached agreement with the Crown that the Crown will not be introducing evidence of firearms found inside a locked cabinet in a home. • I scheduled the Pre-Trial Conference to continue on June 2, 2025. Letter to Parties May 23, 2023 [57] On May 23, 2023, I sent a letter to the parties, stating as follows: This letter is being sent to counsel to offer earlier dates for the trial of Mr. Larry Pick. Larry Pick’s trial is currently scheduled for September 11, 2025, at 2:00 and September 12, 2025 at 9:30 am. Due to a recent change in the Court’s docket on another criminal matter, the dates of June 25 and June 26, 2025, have become available. If these dates can be

agreed on, I would ask that counsel please advise the Kentville Prothonotary as soon as possible, and I would ask the Crown and Mr. Curry to hold those dates. The Prothonotary will bring this matter forward for a Pre-trial Conference to speak to this matter on the record. Fourth Appearance in Supreme Court: June 2, 2025 [58] The Court was unable to schedule an earlier Pre-Trial Conference with the parties. The parties appeared, as originally scheduled, for a further Pre-Trial Conference on June 2, 2025. [59] This is what occurred at the June 2, 2025 Pre-Trial Conference: • The Crown advised that it intended to file separate Indictments against each accused within the next two days. • Mr. Hirtle agreed, on behalf of Arthur Pick, that the Crown may sever the accused by filing separate Indictments. • I confirmed my letter to counsel on May 23, 2025, advising that another matter was not proceeding on June 25, and June 26, 2025, on which Mr. Hirtle and Mr. Taylor were counsel of record. The dates were offered to counsel to bring Larry Pick’s trial forward, pending confirmation of the availability of counsel. • Mr. Taylor advised that he could arrange for another Crown to be in attendance on June 25, and June 26, 2025. Mr. Curry advised that he would be out of the country on those dates and would not be available. Severance by Filing Separate Indictments [60] The Crown filed separate

Indictments against the accused on June 5, 2025. [61] The Indictment against Larry Pick alone was confirmed on the record on July 24, 2025, at the outset of Larry Pick’s s.11(b) application hearing. Analysis [62] Larry Pick’s charges reached the Supreme Court approximately 29 months post-Information. Some of the delay was inherent. Some of it is attributable to the court, and some to the co-accused. Some of the delay was caused by the conduct of Larry Pick: (1) his failure to retain counsel from May 9, 2023 to August 1, 2023; and (2) his unavailability for trial on June 25 and 26, 2025, when the Crown and the court were available. [63] As required, I have considered all relevant circumstances to determine how the delay in this matter should be apportioned among the participants. This has required me to consider the actions of the co-accused, Arthur Pick, and his lawyer, Mr. Hirtle. However, Arthur Pick did not participate in the hearing of this application, and my comments about him and his lawyer are not and should not be considered findings as against Arthur Pick. [64] The following table summarizes my attribution of delay, after which I will provide detailed reasons for my conclusion that there was some delay attributable to Larry Pick: Date Reason for Appearance Outcome Attribution of Delay Why Dec 13, 2022 Information Sworn Summons issued Jan 25, 2023 for first appearance

in Provincial Court on Feb 8, 2023 Inherent - 57 days (Dec 13, 2022 to Feb 8, 2023) These were required procedural steps. Feb 8, 2023 First appearance Adjourned to March 8, 2023 Inherent – 28 days (Feb 8, 2023 to March 8, 2023) First appearance, adjourned for accused to retain counsel. March 8, 2023 Election & plea Adjourned to April 11, 2023 Inherent - 34 days (March 8, 2023 to April 11, 2023) Second adjournment for accused to retain counsel. April 11, 2023 Election & plea Adjourned to May 9, 2023 Inherent – 28 Days (April 11, 2023 to May 9, 2023) Larry Pick had not yet retained counsel, but Arthur Pick was waiting for intake call with NS Legal Aid. May 9, 2023 Election & plea Adjourned to June 7, 2023 (but brought back early on June 6, 2023) Defence – 28 days (May 9, 2023 to June 6, 2023) Larry Pick did not yet have counsel although he had been explicitly encouraged to do so by the court on February 8 and April 11, 2023, and had ample time to do so. June 6, 2023 Brought forward early – only Mr. Taylor and Mr. Hirtle in attendance Adjourned to July 4, 2023 Defence - 28 days (June 6, 2023 to July 4, 2023) As will be evident from the next appearance, Larry Pick did not yet have counsel although he had been encouraged to do so and had ample time to do so. July 4, 2023 Election & plea Adjourned to August 1, 2023 Defence - 28 days (July 4, 2023 to August 1, 2023) Larry Pick did not

yet have counsel although he had been encouraged to do so and had ample time to do so. August 1, 2023 Election & Plea Scheduling of Preliminary Inquiry Both accused elect trial by judge alone in the Supreme Court. Arthur Pick requested a Preliminary Inquiry. Preliminary Inquiry scheduled for July 17, 2024. Matter brought forward early on April 9, 2024 Inherent - 245 days (August 1, 2023 to April 2, 2024) Co-Accused unavailability – 106 days (April 2, 2024 to July 17, 2024) Court - 187 days (from July 17, 2024 to January 20, 2025) Co-accused unavailability - 85 days (from January 20, 2025 to April 15, 2025) 245 days inherent because, on August 1, 2023, when the Preliminary Inquiry was scheduled, the court, Crown and Mr. Curry were available to hold the Preliminary Inquiry on April 2, 2024, but the co-accused was not. An eight-month wait for a one-day Preliminary Inquiry is not out of the ordinary. The court, Crown and Mr. Curry were available on six earlier dates for the Preliminary Inquiry from April to July, 2024, but the co-accused was not. 187 days attributable to the court because: (1) the court waited eight months, from August 1, 2023 to April 9, 2024, to inform the parties on the record that July 17, 2024 was no longer available for the Preliminary Inquiry, and to reschedule it to February 28, 2025; (2) on April 9, 2024, the court rescheduled the Preliminary Inquiry to

February 28, 2025, but brought the parties back on April 11, 2024, to inform the parties that February 28, 2025 was not available, and rescheduled the Preliminary Inquiry to April 15, 2025; (3) the court, Crown and Mr. Curry were available on January 20, 2025, but the co-accused was not. When the court rescheduled the Preliminary Inquiry at the April 9, 2024 appearance, the court, Crown and Mr. Curry were available on January 20, 2025, but the co-accused was not. April 9, 2024 Crown’s request to schedule focus hearing. Court informed parties that July 17, 2024 not available for Preliminary Inquiry Preliminary Inquiry scheduled for February 28, 2025. Brought back early again on April 11, 2024 April 11, 2024 Court informed the parties that February 28, 2025 is not available for the Preliminary Inquiry Preliminary Inquiry rescheduled to April 15, 2025 April 15, 2025 Preliminary Inquiry Scheduled to May 2, 2025 in Supreme Court Inherent – 17 days (April 15, 2025 to May 2, 2025) Scheduling to Supreme Court after Preliminary Inquiry in the normal course. May 2, 2025 First Appearance in Supreme Court and Pre-Trial Conference Potential trial dates canvassed. Dates available to the court and the Crown, but not Mr. Curry: June 13, 2025, full day, and June 23, 2025, starting at 2:00 p.m. Joint trial dates scheduled for Feb.4 and 5, 2026. Further Pre-Trial Conference scheduled for May 7,

2025 to discuss potential severance Inherent - 5 days (May 2, 2025 to May 7, 2025) Scheduling of further Pre-Trial Conference in the normal course. May 7, 2025 Further Pre-Trial Conference The Court directed the Crown and Mr. Curry to hold September 11 and 12, 2025 for Larry Pick’s trial, should the Crown decide to sever. Larry Pick’s s.11(b) Application scheduled for July 24, 2025, for half a day. Further Pre-Trial Conference scheduled for May 13, 2025 Inherent – 6 days (May 7, 2025 to May 13, 2025) Scheduling of further Pre-Trial Conference in the normal course. May 13, 2025 Further Pre-Trial Conference Crown will sever the accused. September 11 and 12, 2025 continued to be held for Larry Pick’s trial. Mr. Curry to be out of the country from June 21 to July 7, 2025 Further Pre-Trial Conference scheduled for June 2, 2025 Inherent – 20 days (May 13, 2025 to June 2, 2025) Scheduling of further Pre-Trial Conference in the normal course. June 2, 2025 Further Pre-Trial Conference Court confirmed May 23, 2023 letter asking parties to hold June 25 and 26, 2025 for Larry Pick’s trial. Crown available for June 25 and 26. Mr. Curry not available. September 11 and 12, 2025 trial dates confirmed Inherent - 24 days (June 2, 2025 to June 26, 2025) Defence – 79 days (June 26, 2025 to and including the full day on September 12, 2025) 79 days attributable to the Defence because Court and Crown

available to conduct trial on June 25 and 26, 2025, but Mr. Curry not available. Trial anticipated to conclude on September 12, 2025. 30 months: 914 days Total Delay: 1005 days Delay attributable to the Defence: 163 days Net Delay: 842 days First Period of Defence Delay: Failure of Larry Pick to Retain Counsel from May 9, 2023 to August 1, 2023 – 84 Days [65] The delay from May 9, 2023 to August 1, 2023 was caused equally by Larry Pick and Arthur Pick. It was not Defence action taken to legitimately respond to the charges. [66] With respect to Larry Pick, as of the May 9, 2023 appearance in Provincial Court, the court had twice explicitly encouraged Larry Pick to make efforts to retain a lawyer: on February 8, 2023 and on April 11, 2023. By the time of Larry Pick’s next appearance on July 4, 2023, he had still not retained a lawyer. He had had at least five months to do so, which was ample time. The court adjourned the election and plea once again to August 1, 2023. [67] With respect to Arthur Pick, there is no legitimate reason I can discern from the record for the adjournment requests made by Arthur Pick’s counsel on May 9, 2023, June 6, 2023 and July 4, 2023, and granted by the court. Furthermore, on July 4, 2023, Arthur Pick had not filed a designation of counsel, and was not present in court. [68] The delay attributable to Larry Pick from May 9, 2023 to August 1, 2023 is

84 days. Second Period of Defence Delay: Larry Pick Not Available for June 25 and 26, 2025 Trial Dates when Court and Crown Available – 79 Days [69] I attribute the delay from June 26, 2025, when Larry Pick’s trial could have been concluded but for his counsel’s unavailability, to September 12, 2025, the anticipated conclusion of the trial, to Larry Pick. [70] Larry Pick asserts that it is not reasonable, as of the first appearance in Supreme Court on May 2, 2025, to expect him and his lawyer to have been ready to proceed to trial on the following dates that the Court and the Crown were available: May 13, afternoon only; May 15; May 21; June 13; and June 23, afternoon only. Larry Pick asserts that an accused requires two or three months from the first appearance in Supreme Court to be ready for trial. He makes the same argument about the June 25 and 26 dates, which were offered to counsel by letter on May 23, 2025, and confirmed on the record on June 2, 2025. Mr. Curry was on vacation and scheduled to be out of the country on those days. [71] Given that the Crown indicated that it needed to determine its witness availability for the May dates due to the quick turnaround, and the Crown did not confirm its witness availability for those dates, I cannot conclude that the Crown would have been ready to proceed on those dates. [72] I will therefore focus my analysis on the dates

offered in June. [73] At the May 13, 2025 Pre-Trial Conference, Larry Pick advised that he would not be bringing a s.8 Charter application. His trial would therefore only require 1.5 days, with no pre-trial applications. [74] Larry Pick’s trial could therefore have been conducted and concluded on June 13 (full day) and June 23 (half a day). [75] Even if I accept, without deciding, that defence counsel is not necessarily required to accept the first dates offered, the trial could have been conducted and concluded on June 25 and 26, 2025, but for Mr. Curry’s unavailability. Those dates were offered to counsel by letter from me dated May 23, 2025. [76] Larry Pick says that it would be unreasonable to expect him to be ready for a trial with only about a month to prepare because: • He did not have a Preliminary Inquiry transcript yet, and even though he did not participate in the Preliminary Inquiry, relevant issues came up. • His lawyer required time to consider the implications of severance and whether the co-accused could be called as a witness against him. • Counsel required time to consider what, if any, witnesses to call, and to prepare and serve the subpoenas. [77] I find that, in the circumstances of this case, Larry Pick should have been ready to proceed to trial on June 25 and 26, 2025, even though they were just short of two months from the first appearance in Supreme

Court, and just over one month from my letter offering the dates, for the following reasons: • Counsel knew as of April 11, 2024, that the Preliminary Inquiry would be conducted on April 15, 2025, 28 months into the Jordan timeline. Counsel had one year’s notice that, as of April 15, 2025, time would be of the essence. Counsel should have known that, once the matter arrived in Supreme Court shortly after the Preliminary Inquiry, the judge would be making every effort to schedule Larry Pick’s trial within the 30-month ceiling. Counsel should have been ready with the defence strategy, and given the urgency, should have anticipated that severance was a very real possibility. • Counsel did not attend the Preliminary Inquiry. Knowing that Larry Pick’s right to a trial within a reasonable time was in jeopardy, if there was any possibility that the Preliminary Inquiry evidence was going to be relevant, counsel should have been in attendance and taken notes to ensure that Larry Pick was ready to set quick trial dates once committal had taken place. • Counsel requested a copy of the transcript at the conclusion of the Preliminary Inquiry. However, given the urgency of the matter, counsel should have requested the audio recording on a rush basis, and ordered the transcript on a rush basis. Had the transcript not been ready for the trial, counsel would have had their notes and the audio

recording to prepare for trial. Worst case scenario, counsel could have used the audio recording if necessary at the trial, if the transcript was not ready. • This is not a complex case. As noted by Larry Pick at paras.122 and 127 of his brief: It is respectfully submitted this is not a complex case. This is a routine drug investigation and arrest. The Crown alleges the Police attended the Applicant’s residence with a warrant, searched the residence and found illegal drugs and improperly stored firearms. The facts alleged are relatively straightforward. … It is respectfully submitted the instant case, one involving local persons living together of possessing a significant, but comparatively small amount of drugs, cannot compare to the complexity of a case involving multiple persons conspiring to smuggle drugs through an international airport. [78] Expecting defence counsel to be available to proceed in these circumstances does not amount to insisting that he hold himself in a state of “perpetual availability,” as the term was used by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Godin, 2009 SCC 26 at para.23. As the Ontario Court of Appeal noted in R. v. Albinowski, 2018 ONCA 1084 at para.32, the determination in Godin that defence counsel was not responsible for one month and a half of delay because he was not available on the earliest date (a single date) offered for the rescheduled

preliminary inquiry was grounded in the circumstances of that case, i.e. the Crown’s responsibility for the need to reschedule and the attempts by the defence to expedite the proceedings. [79] This is a situation more like that in Albinowski. There, defence counsel rejected multiple dates offered for the scheduling of the judicial pre-trials and the preliminary inquiry. They were unavailable because they were engaged with previously scheduled professional commitments. Their unavailability was not related to “defence actions legitimately taken to respond to the charges,” such as “preparation time” and “defence applications and requests that are not frivolous”: Jordan at para.65. See Albinowski at para.33. [80] Of course, defence counsel are entitled to take vacation. However, in the post-Jordan world, the Defence must understand that, if they cannot accommodate dates offered by the court that would result in an earlier trial, this period of time may be considered as defence delay. Accused persons must bear in mind that a corollary of the s. 11(b) right “to be tried within a reasonable time” is the responsibility to avoid causing unreasonable delay: Cody at para.33. Defence counsel are therefore expected to “actively advanc[e] their clients’ right to a trial within a reasonable time, collaborat[e] with Crown counsel when appropriate and . . . us[e] court time efficiently”: Cody,

ibid., citing Jordan, at para. 138. [81] I attribute the delay from June 26, 2025, when Larry Pick’s trial could have been concluded but for his counsel’s unavailability, up to and including September 12, 2025, the anticipated conclusion of the trial, to Larry Pick: 79 days. Total Delay Attributed to the Defence [82] The total delay attributable to the defence is 163 days. Net Delay [83] The net delay in this case is 842 days (1005 days of total delay minus 163 days attributable to Larry Pick). [84] The net delay of 842 days does not exceed the presumptive 30-month ceiling (914 days). Conclusion [85] Larry Pick has not established a violation of his right to have his trial within a reasonable time. His application under s.11(b) of the Charter is dismissed. Gatchalian, J.