R. v. Pick

R. v. Pick

The three‑hour failure to facilitate access to counsel after an explicit request constituted a negligent but serious s.10(b) breach; the breach was temporally and contextually connected to the evidence seized so it was obtained in a manner that infringed the Charter; applying Grant the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused outweighed society's interest in admitting the reliable evidence in these circumstances, therefore the evidence was excluded under s.24(2).

Citation
2026 NSSC 17
Parties
Crown: His Majesty the King; Applicant/accused: Arthur Malcolm Pick
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Application to Exclude Evidence Under S.24(2) of the Charter (charter Hearing)
Outcome
Application granted; impugned evidence excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter.
Legal Topics
Section 10(b) Right to Counsel, Section 10(a) Notice of Change in Jeopardy, Prosper Warning, Exclusion of Evidence Under S.24(2), Delay in Access to Counsel, Search Warrant Execution, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Firearms Possession Offences
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Search and Seizure Section 10(b) Right to Counsel Section 10(a) Notice of Change in Jeopardy Prosper Warning Exclusion of Evidence Under S.24(2) +4 more

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 4 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Crown

Arthur Malcolm Pick

Applicant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Application to Exclude Evidence Under S.24(2) of the Charter (charter Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police breached s.10(b) by failing to facilitate timely access to counsel
  2. 2 Whether police breached s.10(a) by failing to advise of a change in jeopardy when firearms were found
  3. 3 Whether the police failed to provide the Prosper warning when detainee waived counsel after initially requesting it

Ratio Decidendi

The three‑hour failure to facilitate access to counsel after an explicit request constituted a negligent but serious s.10(b) breach; the breach was temporally and contextually connected to the evidence seized so it was obtained in a manner that infringed the Charter; applying Grant the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused outweighed society's interest in admitting the reliable evidence in these circumstances, therefore the evidence was excluded under s.24(2).

Court Disposition

Application granted; impugned evidence excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter.

Orders

  • All evidence seized on November 22, 2022 from Mr. Pick's person, vehicle and residence is excluded under s.24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.