R. v. Pick

R. v. Pick

After attributing 163 days of delay to the defence (84 days for failure to retain counsel May 9–Aug 1, 2023 and 79 days for counsel unavailability for June 25–26, 2025), the net delay was 842 days (1005 total minus 163 defence) which is below the 30‑month presumptive ceiling of 914 days; accordingly there was no breach of s.11(b) and the application for a stay was dismissed.

Citation
2025 NSSC 279
Parties
Prosecution: His Majesty the King; Accused: Larry Malcolm Pick; Co Accused: Arthur Malcolm Pick
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal (indictment) / S.11(b) Charter Application (pre Trial)
Outcome
s.11(b) application dismissed; no stay of proceedings ordered.
Legal Topics
Charter S.11(b) Delay, Jordan Framework, Severance, Preliminary Inquiry
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Charter S.11(b) Delay Jordan Framework Severance Preliminary Inquiry

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Prosecution

Larry Malcolm Pick

Accused

Arthur Malcolm Pick

Co Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (indictment) / S.11(b) Charter Application (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay violated s.11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time
  2. 2 How to apportion total delay among court, Crown, co-accused and defence
  3. 3 Whether defence conduct (failure to retain counsel; counsel unavailability) justifies subtracting delay from total

Ratio Decidendi

After attributing 163 days of delay to the defence (84 days for failure to retain counsel May 9–Aug 1, 2023 and 79 days for counsel unavailability for June 25–26, 2025), the net delay was 842 days (1005 total minus 163 defence) which is below the 30‑month presumptive ceiling of 914 days; accordingly there was no breach of s.11(b) and the application for a stay was dismissed.

Court Disposition

s.11(b) application dismissed; no stay of proceedings ordered.

Orders

  • s.11(b) Charter application dismissed