Murray Wood: When fishing trips really are about fishing
Murray Wood says his annual "Gentlemen's Retreat" is actually becoming, well... not quite gentlemanly, but cer...
After 20 years, the person who stabbed and killed Misha Pavelick at a high school party on the 2006 May long weekend will be heading to prison.
On Tuesday afternoon, Justice Catherine Dawson handed down a youth sentence to the now-37-year-old man, of seven years – four to be served in custody, and three to be served in the community.
Read more:
- Misha Pavelick’s killer, now 37, to be sentenced as youth for 2006 murder
- Misha Pavelick murder: Regina judge to deliver sentence
- Pathologist explains exactly how Misha Pavelick died
The man was 17 at the time of the killing and, on Monday, Dawson announced he would be sentenced as a youth, telling court the Crown hadn’t met the legal burden to provide for an adult sentence.
Though he was sentenced as a youth, the offender will serve his time in an adult prison. His name will also not be publicly released, as he is still subject to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
Justice Dawson also decided the offender would not get any credit for the time he was in custody before trial. He’d been held in custody since October 2024 after failing to appear at the start of his preliminary trial.
In explaining her decision to the court, Dawson said the gravity of the offence, the offender’s responsibility and his moral culpability were at the high end of the spectrum, necessitating a sentence at the high end of the range.
“This is the sentence that is most likely to rehabilitate (the offender), promote a sense of responsibility for the harm done, while also addressing the other principles and factors I have referred to,” said Dawson.
On Monday, in her decision to sentence him as a youth, Dawson did mention that she didn’t think the relatively short youth sentence would be sufficient in this case.
“I’ll never forget this case”
Neither lawyer was surprised at the youth sentence or the length of it.
Adam Breker, the Crown lawyer involved in the case, said the judge had a lot to consider when it came to the 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 that we were entirely surprised given the state of the law in that area,” explained Breker.
Andrew Hitchcock, the offender’s defence lawyer, said the test to be sentenced as an adult is extremely onerous and, in a case like this with alcohol and a large fight, said it was unlikely it was going to be met.
“The point of the reasonable doubt standard is to try and enforce this humility that none of us were there, and none of us saw what happened, and so, unless you’re really certain, you have to find a certain way,” said Hitchcock.
He was also not surprised Dawson chose not to give his client credit for the time he’d spent in custody pre-trial.
“It was a terrible outcome (that night in 2006), he had a jury trial, there’s a lot of attention on this case and the sentence that he got was already significantly less than what he would have gotten if he was an adult, so I wasn’t surprised that she didn’t give him the credit,” Hitchcock said.
Defence lawyer Andrew Hitchcock wasn’t surprised either by his client being sentenced as a youth, or the judge’s decision to not give any credit for his time spent in pre-trial custody. June 16, 2026 (Lisa Schick/980 CJME)
Breker said he was satisfied with the sentence and that the offender was given the maximum possible, saying it was appropriate and deserved.
“We’re certainly grateful for that decision today, and grateful that finally the matter has reached a conclusion,” said Breker.
As of the sentencing, the murder had happened more than 20 years prior, and Breker said it’s a burden for the Pavelick family that wouldn’t end Tuesday.
“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 occurred. We are happy that there was able to be this conclusion,” he shared.
Breker doesn’t anticipate a sentence appeal from the Crown. In Hitchcock’s opinion, there are grounds to appeal by the defence, but he said that decision will be made by the offender.
Both lawyers commented on the length of the case and how complicated it was – between the number of witnesses and the difficulties posed by the time that had elapsed.
“I’ll never forget this case,” Hitchcock said.
“It’s very, very difficult one for a jury to decide, because there were several potential suspects, memories of all the witnesses were contaminated by talking with each other and all the years that had gone by. So, it was a difficult case, but the Crown put their witnesses forward and we pointed all the problems in the case, and the jury decided how they did.”
