Brandon Harder
Regina Leader-Post
A 37-year-old man listened intently as lawyers argued whether he should receive an adult sentence for a killing that happened nearly 20 years ago.
The man, who was convicted of second-degree murder by a jury on Nov. 14, 2025, cannot be named in keeping with the Youth Criminal Justice Act because he was 17 on the May long weekend in 2006 when 19-year-old Misha Pavelick was fatally stabbed.
On Thursday, at the conclusion of a three-day sentencing hearing that heard from corrections workers, mental health professionals and grieving family, prosecutor Adam Breker stood firmly on the Crown’s position that the man should be sentenced as an adult.
In this case, if he were to be sentenced as an adult, the mandatory penalty would be life imprisonment with no chance of parole for seven years. The maximum available youth sentence would be four years in custody with three years under community supervision.
In such cases, it is the Crown’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the youth was essentially operating with adult capacity at the time of the offence — a burden defence lawyer Andrew Hitchcock said the Crown failed to meet in this case.
Further, if adult capacity is proven, court heard the judge is still left to determine whether an adult sentence is necessary under the circumstances.
Breker pointed at the man’s long history of offending, both before and after Pavelick’s death, suggesting that the man displayed no signs of achieving greater maturity following the incident at issue. This is to suggest that it would be expected of a youth without the maturity of an adult at the time of an offence to show signs of maturing thereafter.
“The conduct has been unabated and it should point the court, in our submission, to the fact this was not a reflection of an underprivileged, youthful, immature kid who is trying to impress older peers. It is a reflection of his fully formed self that unfortunately could not stop committing offences,” the prosecutor said.
While the man was perhaps not an “overachiever,” evidence showed him to be a “reasonable and functional achiever” with the capabilities of an adult, Breker argued.
Hitchcock pointed to the evidence of a psychologist who told court the convicted man, even to this day, does not possess adult maturity.
“It may prove that this was just who he was. But it also may prove that he just didn’t ever develop the way you’d expect an adult to develop,” Hitchcock submitted.
Hitchcock argued the psychologist’s finding has to mean there’s at least reasonable doubt that, when the convicted man was 17, he did not possess adult-like maturity and capacity for moral judgement.
Lawyers arguments were sprawling and covered a variety of factors they felt were essential for the judge’s consideration, many of which are not referenced here. These included arguments on post-offence conduct, markers of the convicted man’s level of social and academic function at the time, and historic documents from his interaction with the justice system.
Court of King’s Bench Justice Catherine Dawson told lawyers she had much to consider and plans to deliver a decision in late May.
bharder@postmedia.com
