REGINA – A maximum youth sentence of seven years has been handed down for the second degree murder of Misha Pavelick that happened 20 years ago.
The accused, who cannot be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, received that sentence of seven years from Justice Catherine Dawson in King's Bench court, Regina, on Tuesday. The individual will not be credited with any time served while in custody prior to trial.
The accused must serve a seven year sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act with the first four years of his sentence to be spent in custody; the other three will be served in the community under supervision. The accused is also required to provide a DNA sample and is prohibited from possessing weapons for a period of 10 years from that day. There is no chance of parole and the indication from the Crown in speaking to reporters is the accused will be serving the full seven years.
The accused, as well as Pavelick's family, were in court during the two days set aside for sentencing this week.
A major question during sentencing was whether the accused would be sentenced as a youth or as an adult in the the historical murder case. The accused was 17 years old at the time of the murder of Pavelick, who was killed at a stabbing during a party with 100-plus attendees on May 21, 2006, at Kinookimow Beach on Last Mountain Lake.
On Monday, Justice Dawson had determined that the accused would be sentenced as a youth in the case. She reserved her final decision on sentencing to Tuesday afternoon.
There was little doubt the accused would receive the maximum possible seven years under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, but the issue to be decided was whether any credit for pretrial time in custody would be applied to the remaining sentence to be served.
In her remarks to the court Tuesday in King's Bench court, Justice Dawson said that in determining the appropriate sentence she considered a number of factors.
In terms of proportionality, she determined that the sentence should be at the high end of the spectrum. Justice Dawson noted the murder was caused when a group of people approached Pavelick after he had struck one of their friends with a beer bottle.
Dawson said the accused had stabbed Pavelick once with a knife, penetrating his heart and killing him. She found the gravity of the offence and the accused's degree of responsibility at the high end of the spectrum, as he was not the victim of the initial assault.
His participation in a group assault and stabbing the victim put him at the high end of the spectrum, she said.
On the principle of parity, when it came to a review of youth sentences for second degree murder, while there is a range of sentences the sentences imposed for similar offences for similar circumstances are at the high end of the custodial sentence range.
She also said a custodial sentence is necessary to achieve the objectives of denunciation and deterrence and for the rehabilitation of the accused. She said the accused had not identified that he should have acted differently at all. Dawson also pointed to the testimony of two experts who said the accused had undiagnosed disorders including addiction and antisocial disorders.
On his degree of participation in commission of the offence, he had a high degree, having approached Pavelick when they could have retreated.
As for the harm done and whether it was intentional or foreseeable, Justice Dawson said it was te most serious harm: Pavelick lost his life. It was intentional and the harm done was reasonably foreseeable.
Dawson said that the accused had intentionally stabbed Pavelick and had the intention to kill him or cause grievous bodily harm and was reckless on whether death ensued.
Justice Dawson also said the accused had made no reparations to the victim or the community.
On aggravating circumstances, she said the accused had brought a knife to the gathering and was not invited, it was aggravating that a knife was used and had left the area immediately after the stabbing. There were few mitigating circumstances, except for the accused's low cognitive function, she said.
On the question of whether to take into account the accused's time in detention of one year, eight months and 14 days, Justice Dawson sided with the Crown's suggestion that there be no credit for pretrial custody. She noted that according to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, taking into account pretrial detention as a consideration is a discretionary matter.
Dawson said given the circumstances of the offence and offender, need for accountability, the need for sustained programming and ongoing education for the accused's rehabilitation, she said the accused must be sentenced at the upper limit "without reduction for time spent in pretrial custody." She said the accused needed a lengthy, sustained period of programming to address the principle of rehabiliation and integration into the community.
As for where the accused will serve his sentence, Justice Dawson made no order to that respect. However, the indication from lawyers in speaking to reporters is that he will be serving the sentence in an adult facility.
The sentencing decision brings to a conclusion a long case that had been unresolved for close to two decades, followed by a lengthy trial and sentencing process. The jury found the defendant guilty of second degree murder on Nov. 14, 2025.
In speaking to reporters following the sentencing ruling, Crown prosecutor Adam Breker said they were satisfied with the outcome from Justice Dawson that afternoon.
"It was obviously a very long process getting to today," said Breker. She noted the judge had "a great amount to consider in relation to our application for an adult sentence."
"We were disappointed of course that she found we hadn't met our burden on that front, but can't say we were entirely surprised given the state of the law in that area. So today the judge gave the maximum possible sentence that she could have under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. We think that was appropriate so we're certainly grateful for that decision today and grateful that finally the matter has reached a conclusion."
As for whether the seven year sentence was a reflection of the crime committed, Breker called that a "tough thing for me to answer."
"People may have views about the available sentences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and that's not something I would comment on. I would just say we deal with the legislation that's in place and the maximum sentence that this individual could receive today was a combined sentence that amounts to seven years and that's going forward for him on top of the time in custody leading up to today."
As for the conclusion of the case, Breker noted that for the Pavelick family it had been over 20 years.
"For them it's been a burden that won't end today, but we're relieved that we were able to bring this matter to court, that the facts of this incident were uncovered and that someone's been finally held accountable albeit a long long time after it occured. We were happy that we finally had this conclusion."
Defence lawyer Andrew Hitchcock said he was not surprised at the decision by the judge to impose a youth sentence, saying the Crown's burden for an adult sentence was extremely onerous to meet. As for the seven year sentence imposed that day Hitchcock was not surprised at the length..
"This is what the Youth Criminal Justice Act calls for, so I think everybody knew coming in that if it was going to be a youth sentence that's what it was going to be."
Hitchcock was also not surprised that there was no credit for time served.
"I was not surprised that this was her decision," said Hitchcock, noting the amount of attention on the case and the fact that the sentence "was already signification less than what he would have gotten as an adult, so I'm not surprised that she wouldn't give him the credit."
As for a potential appeal, Hitchcock said they are contemplating it, and he has 30 days to decide. "I certainly think he has grounds to appeal but it's going to be his decision."
As for his thoughts about the unique aspects of this case, especially with the events taking place 20 years earlier, Hitchcock said there was "so many."
"I'll never forget this case. It was a very difficult one for a jury to decide because there were several potential suspects, memories of the witnesses were contaminated by talking to each other and all the years that had gone by. So it was a difficult case, I think. But I mean, the Crown put their witnesses forward and we pointed all the problems in the case and the jury decided how they did."
