Reasons for Sentence

Court File No.: CR-24-10000061-0000
Date: 2025-06-09
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King
-and-
Pal Pintyi

Appearances:
Matthew Shumka and Rachel Verboom, for the Crown
I. Loui Dallas and Steven Stauffer, for Pal Pintyi

Heard: May 28, 2025
Judge: Kelly

Introduction

[1] Mr. Pal Pintyi was charged with first-degree murder in the death of his brother-in-law, Mr. Robert Racz. At the conclusion of his trial, which proceeded before judge alone, I convicted Mr. Pintyi of manslaughter. He was acquitted of murder.[^1]

[2] Mr. Pintyi now appears before me for sentencing.

The Sentencing Positions

[3] Crown counsel seeks a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment. Counsel for Mr. Pintyi submits that the appropriate sentence is five years’ imprisonment.

[4] All counsel agree that Mr. Pintyi should receive credit for pre-sentence custody pursuant to s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code. Further, all counsel agree that he should receive credit for the harsh conditions in which he served his pre-trial custody pursuant to the principles in R. v. Duncan.[^2]

[5] Counsel also agree that Mr. Pintyi should be subject to the following ancillary orders: (i) a weapons prohibition, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code for life and one for 10 years; and (ii) the provision of a sample of his DNA. If additional time was to be served, Crown counsel sought a custodial non-communication order with various persons, pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code.

The Result

[6] For the reasons set out below, I sentence Mr. Pintyi to five years’ imprisonment plus one day (time served).

[7] Mr. Pintyi will be subject to a s. 109 order for life pursuant to ss. 109(2)(b) of the Criminal Code. He will also be subject to a s. 109 order for 10 years, pursuant to ss. 109(2)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code. He will provide a sample of his DNA pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code. A custodial non-communication order is not required in the circumstances.

The Facts

[8] Mr. Pintyi and Mr. Racz were related by marriage. Mr. Pintyi was the common-law spouse of Ms. Rozalia Racz, Mr. Racz’s sister. The relationship between Mr. Pintyi and Mr. Racz, prior to the incident giving rise to Mr. Racz’s death, could easily be described as turbulent.

[9] For years, Mr. Racz had been jealous of Mr. Pintyi. He believed that Mr. Pintyi had had an affair with his wife (Mariann), which Mr. Pintyi denies. Commencing in 2018, Mr. Racz threatened and assaulted Mr. Pintyi on several occasions. That conduct was summarized as follows in my reasons for judgment, at paras. 208-212:

[208] The evidence shows that Mr. Racz assaulted and threatened Mr. Pintyi the day Mr. Pintyi arrived in Canada in 2018. It did not stop for four years thereafter. Mr. Pintyi and Rozalia moved homes, at least twice, to avoid confrontation with Mr. Racz. Mr. Pintyi considered a third move out of the city to avoid Mr. Racz, but Rozalia did not want to do so. Mr. Pintyi moved his mother-in-law out of his home to avoid seeing Mr. Racz who would come to visit his mother and while there, abuse him.

[209] Although he did not call the police in 2019, they became involved after Mr. Racz beat Mr. Pintyi into a state of unconsciousness. Mr. Pintyi was hospitalized. Mr. Racz went to jail for a year because of his conduct. Mr. Pintyi was pressured by the Racz family to lie to the police. He contemplated moving back to Hungary because of this incident, a country that he fled because of ethnic persecution. Both Mr. Pintyi and Rozalia described that Mr. Racz became more aggressive after his release from jail. He seemed relentless.

[210] Mr. Racz continually threatened and assaulted Mr. Pintyi when he showed up, uninvited, to Mr. Pintyi’s homes. Mr. Pintyi tried to be civil with Mr. Racz, particularly when Mr. Racz was sober, agreeing to take him shopping for a car and even steal car parts so that Mr. Racz could put food on the table for his family. Unfortunately, things were always worse when Mr. Racz was drunk, which was often.

[211] I accept that Mr. Pintyi feared Mr. Racz based on their history since 2018. However, history repeated itself on March 9 and 10, 2022, two and three days before the incident giving rise to Mr. Racz’s death.

[212] On March 9, 2022, when told that Mr. Racz was looking for him and drunk, Mr. Pintyi moved his family into a hotel for the night. When he returned the next day (March 10, 2022) and was told that Mr. Racz was still looking for him and drunk, he called the police. Following that, Mr. Racz called Mr. Pintyi a rat and suggested that Mr. Pintyi would pay for involving the police. The payment would be that Mr. Racz would kill him. Not 24 hours later, during a phone call, Mr. Racz told Mr. Pintyi that he was going to do just that, kill him.

[10] On March 11, 2022, Mr. Pintyi was out with his wife. After receiving threatening calls from Mr. Racz, Mr. Pintyi returned to his home. He exited his van and threatened to beat Mr. Racz to death while wielding a steel pipe, although Mr. Racz was not yet in the area. Mr. Pintyi got back in his van, intending to leave. After Mr. Racz arrived in the area, Mr. Pintyi got out of his van, again, armed with a steel pipe.

[11] As words and gestures were exchanged, Mr. Pintyi approached Mr. Racz. He hit the ground with the steel pipe and then continued his approach to Mr. Racz. He believed that Mr. Racz was reaching for his throat, so he hit him on the head with the pipe, once. I found that he did so instinctively and in the heat of the moment. He did not have the intent to kill. Mr. Racz fell to the ground. Mr. Pintyi kicked him twice when he was down. Mr. Racz began to bleed profusely from the wounds inflicted. Mr. Racz became unconscious.

[12] Several people were quickly on scene, including Mr. Pintyi’s wife, as well as Mr. Racz’s mother and brother. Police and ambulance attendants arrived. Mr. Racz was transported to the hospital for treatment. Mr. Pintyi was arrested for assault causing bodily harm.

[13] Approximately seven weeks later, on May 6, 2022, Mr. Racz succumbed to his injuries. He died. Mr. Racz’s cause of death was described as “complications of blunt head trauma”. Mr. Pintyi was then charged with first degree murder.

Mr. Pintyi’s Background

[14] Mr. Pintyi’s background was reviewed, at some length, in my reasons for judgement. However, I will repeat some of that information here.

[15] All counsel accept that Mr. Pintyi is of below average cognitive ability. Further, all counsel accept that Mr. Pintyi experienced several traumatic incidents in the past and currently suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”). The evidence supports this agreement.

[16] Mr. Pintyi testified that he was born and raised in Hungary, as was the Racz family. He is currently 29 years of age, having been born on December 11, 1995.

[17] Mr. Pintyi has a grade eight education and was raised, mainly, by his grandmother and his step-grandfather. His mother was an alcoholic, and his father was in jail. His family upbringing was less than ideal, as he also suffered abuse at the hands of his step-grandfather.

[18] Mr. Pintyi is of Roma descent, referred to as “gypsy”, a humiliating term. As a Roma Hungarian, Mr. Pintyi suffered prejudice in various forms. For example, he was unable to continue his education and would, amongst other things, be beaten by the Roma Guard who he referred to as “Nazis who hate gypsies”. Although he aspired to become a stone mason, he was not accepted to trade school because of his Roma ethnicity. These are some of the reasons that Mr. Pintyi came to Canada; he was fleeing ethnic persecution and wanted a better life.

[19] Mr. Pintyi met Rozalia, in Hungary, when he was 17 years of age. She was 18. They lived together there, with some of the Racz family (but not the deceased), before coming to Canada in 2018. They have one child, a daughter who is currently eight years of age.

[20] Rozalia and her family, too, is of Roma descent. Because of this, it was hard for them to obtain an education and get jobs. They were treated badly and were discriminated against. Those are some of the reasons that her family came to Canada.

[21] Mr. Racz (Robert) came to Canada with his wife (Mariann) and their three children. Rozalia’s mother, father, and brother (Sandor) also came to Canada. Mr. Pintyi’s sister did as well. All, including Mr. Pintyi and Rozalia, came as refugees.[^4] At times, the Racz family lived together in Canada. At other times, they lived in separate locations but geographically close to each other.

[22] Since living in Canada, Mr. Pintyi has worked intermittently doing odd jobs. One of those jobs was demolition. He would collect scrap steel, take it to the recycling plant and trade it for money. He was doing this at the time of the offence.

[23] Mr. Pintyi has a criminal record that arose following his charge of first-degree murder. Although Crown counsel properly submits that the record is of no value in this proceeding (and I agree), I will refer to it. It has no entries for crimes of violence and includes the following entries:

• February 13, 2023
  • Dangerous operation of a conveyance.
    Suspended sentence and probation for 12 months.
  • Flight while pursued by a peace officer.
    Suspended sentence and probation for 12 months.
• April 21, 2023
  • Theft under $5,000.
    Conditional discharge and probation for 12 months.

[24] Mr. Pintyi addressed the Court at the end of the sentencing hearing. He apologized for his conduct and indicated that he would attempt to provide some care to the children of the deceased, Mr. Racz.

Pre-Sentence Custody

[25] Mr. Pintyi was arrested for this offence on March 11, 2022. He has been in custody since that time. He has been imprisoned, for most of the time, at the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”). During that time, he has been the subject of lockdowns arising from staff shortages on 291 occasions, and was triple bunked on 9 occasions.

[26] Mr. Pintyi provided an affidavit to the Court describing the conditions in which he has served his pre-sentence custody. He said:

• Shortly after having been incarcerated, he was “jumped” by a gang of four to five inmates. They repeatedly punched and kicked him in his face and body. They called him racist names due to his Roma ancestry. He suffered a cut above his left eye.
• He was robbed of food. He had to refuse, otherwise he would not have been able to eat.
• He suffered from extreme anxiety due to the allegations giving rise to his charge of first-degree murder and his traumatic past. When he asked for assistance, he was permitted a visit with a jail psychologist only once every three months.
• On the nine days he was triple bunked, Mr. Pintyi slept on the floor.
• During lockdowns, phone access was restricted to his wife, daughter, and lawyer. He became lonely and depressed because of the restricted phone access and because his language barrier limited communication with others.

Victim Impact Statements

[27] There were no Victim Impact Statements filed. However, I had the benefit of hearing from Mr. Racz’s mother, brother, and sister (Mr. Pintyi’s wife) at trial. It is inescapable that the loss of a loved one is devastating for the family. I am certain that the other witnesses, and people who were in the area at the time, have also suffered some trauma because of seeing the incident unfold on their street in broad daylight.

[28] Mr. Pintyi’s wife, Rozalia, testified at trial. When she was finished, she attended some of the trial proceedings. She also attended at the sentencing hearing. The Court has been advised that she remains supportive of her husband. Mr. Pintyi will return to his home with his wife and daughter when he is released.

The Legal Framework: Sentencing

[29] The following is a summary of the legal principles applicable in sentencing Mr. Pintyi.

a. General Principles

[30] In determining an appropriate sentence for Mr. Pintyi, regard must be had to the sentencing objectives in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, which provides as follows:

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[31] The sentencing judge must also have regard to the following: any aggravating and mitigating factors, including those listed in ss. 718.2(a)(i) to (vi) of the Criminal Code; the principle that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances (s. 718.2(b)); the principle that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh (s. 718.2(c)); and the principle that courts should exercise restraint in imposing imprisonment (ss. 718.2(d) and (e)).[^5]

[32] When a sentence of imprisonment is required (as in this case), a court must impose the shortest sentence of imprisonment that will achieve the various sentencing principles.[^6]

b. The Range: Manslaughter

[33] The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment. However, the spectrum of manslaughter convictions can range from an “unintentional and almost accidental killing” to “those approaching murder at the opposite extremity”.[^7] The varying circumstances in manslaughter cases give rise to the wide variation in the sentences imposed.[^8]

[34] Ranges are important because similar offenders who commit similar offences should receive sentences of some similarity to each other as a matter of fairness.[^9] However, ranges are to be considered as guidelines, not straitjackets.[^10]

[35] Although sentencing for manslaughter is case specific, the Ontario Court of Appeal has held that in cases where the conduct of the offender was accompanied by aggravating features, the applicable range of sentence is usually between 8 to 12 years.[^11] However, this is not a fixed minimum and maximum for a particular category of cases.

[36] Manslaughter is a serious offence because it involves the taking of a life and would normally attract a lengthy sentence.[^12] In order to arrive at an appropriate sentence, the sentencing judge is required to consider the context in which the manslaughter occurred. As a result, the appropriate sentence is case-specific to the facts of the offence and the offender.[^13] Provocation is a mitigating factor that must be taken into consideration in sentencing.[^14]

[37] Counsel provided sentencing precedents in cases involving convictions for manslaughter. I have considered them all.

[38] Crown counsel relies on the following:

• R. v. Clarke: Mr. Clarke was convicted following a jury trial. He brutally stabbed a friend who was in frail health. Justice Archie Campbell imposed a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal reduced it to nine years. The Court of Appeal found the following to be aggravating factors: the victim was frail, vulnerable and defenseless; he was attacked in his own home; a knife was used; the victim was stabbed seven times in the chest area and the wounds were inflicted with considerable force; Mr. Clarke disposed of the knife; he waited 20 minutes before making an anonymous 911 call, during which the victim was still alive; he diverted attention away from himself; he said he flew into “pure rage” against the victim who had only “slightly provoked him”; and there was a devastating impact on the family of the victim.

• R. v. MacKinnon: Following a verbal altercation between two groups of people, Mr. MacKinnon stabbed two men. Both were unarmed. One died; the other was seriously injured. Justice Copeland (as she then was) convicted Mr. MacKinnon of manslaughter and aggravated assault following a lengthy trial. She sentenced Mr. MacKinnon to nine years’ imprisonment for manslaughter and three years concurrent for aggravated assault. Aggravating factors included the following: Mr. MacKinnon responded to a verbal argument with violence (i.e. stabbing); he made no effort to check on the severity of the injuries to his victims; he did not contact emergency services; and he disposed of the knife and his t-shirt. Mitigating factors included: Mr. MacKinnon was a racialized man; for 20 years he had stable employment and was living a pro-social life; and he had the support of his community. In addition, he had mental health issues (PTSD) because of an incident he experienced at the age of 17 when he was shot in the chest and nearly died.

• R. v. Lee: Mr. Lee was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment (by me) for stabbing a stranger. A confrontation occurred between two groups in a park. The victim intervened to de-escalate the situation. He failed. He tried to run away but was chased by Mr. Lee and others. Mr. Lee stabbed the victim once as the victim was on the ground. Tragically, the victim died. After the stabbing, Mr. Lee and his friends fled the scene. They discarded several items. Mr. Lee, then aged 19, was arrested shortly thereafter.

• R. v. Hermiz: Justice Hill imposed a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment. Mr. Hermiz (age 18) pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the face of a qualified defence of provocation. Mr. Hermiz was involved in a confrontation between two groups. The victim struck Mr. Hermiz over the head with a beer bottle following which, Mr. Hermiz stabbed and killed the victim. Mr. Hermiz fled. He had no criminal record.

[39] Counsel for Mr. Pintyi relies on the following:

• R. v. Thompson: After pleading guilty to manslaughter, Scott J. imposed a sentence of four years’ imprisonment. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the sentence. Mr. Thompson attended a party. The victim was initially asleep but awoke to the party goers going through his things. He was upset and pushed several of the party goers around. The group responded, ganging up on the victim. They inflicted 27 blunt force injuries and three stab wounds. Two of the stab wounds penetrated the victim’s lungs. It was found that Mr. Thompson joined the melee once it had begun. He admitted that he picked up the knife and stabbed the victim once as he lay on the ground. He was remorseful and soon after his arrest, he wrote a letter of apology to the family of the deceased. The sentencing judge found that Mr. Thompson inflicted a non-fatal stab wound (i.e., it neither caused nor contributed to the death of the victim) and that provocation would have been a live issue had the matter proceeded to trial. The Court of Appeal concluded, at para. 41, that “while the four-year sentence imposed is at the low end of the range” it was not “demonstrably unfit”.

• R. v. MacFarlane: Mr. MacFarlane attended a house party after having been released from custody earlier that day. When he left, he got into an altercation with the deceased. He and another beat the victim with their fists. The other person stabbed the deceased, causing his death. They returned to the party. Mr. MacFarlane received a sentence of four years. Aggravating factors included: the seriousness of the offence; the fact that Mr. MacFarlane had just been released from jail and was on probation; he had been drinking; he knew his co-accused was armed with a knife; the attack was two-on-one; the beating was significant; the victim was unarmed and unknown to Mr. MacFarlane; and the victim was left bleeding in the street. The mitigating factors included: Mr. MacFarlane was 21 years of age; he had no prior convictions for violent crime; he pleaded guilty and expressed remorse; he cooperated with the investigators; and he was beaten in jail because he pleaded guilty.

• R. v. Bengy: Mr. Bengy was charged with the second-degree murder of two men. Mr. Modeste (his co-accused) was charged with one count of manslaughter involving one of them. Mr. Modeste was found guilty of manslaughter following a jury trial. By its verdict, the jury rejected Mr. Modeste’s argument that he had acted in self-defence or that the fight was consensual. Justice Forestell imposed a sentence of five years’ imprisonment on Mr. Modeste. She found the following to be the mitigating factors: Mr. Modeste had strong family support, a stable work history and was a person of good character. He had no drug or alcohol abuse and no history of violence. He did not commit the act that caused the death. His moral blameworthiness was at the lower range of the spectrum. Aggravating factors included that the victim was unarmed and intoxicated. Although Mr. Modeste did not do the stabbing, he was aware of the stabbing when he entered the fray. Although he fled the scene, there were others to attend to the victim.

• R. v. Beals: Messrs. Beals, Walters and Buckland were charged with first degree murder arising from a stabbing. The jury convicted each of them of manslaughter. The incident arose from a conflict between two groups outside a mall. The victim was stabbed and bled to death. Justice Harris found that the defendants sought out the victim and were the aggressors. Mr. Beals stabbed the victim, causing his death. Justice Harris imposed a sentence of five years, eight months.

• R. v. Croft: Mr. Charles Croft killed his half-brother, Mr. Wayne Croft, by stabbing him with a steak knife during a fist fight. A jury found him guilty of manslaughter. When Wayne was on his way to work, Charles called him a “faggot” and spit in his direction. Wayne ignored him and went to work but returned a few hours early. He attended at the apartment where Charles was located, armed with an expandable baton. He was angry as he approached Charles and they got into a fight. Wayne struck first. Charles put Wayne in a bear hug. At some point, Charles picked up a cheap steak knife and used it to stab Wayne. The knife nicked Wayne’s heart and Wayne died of internal bleeding. Justice Harris imposed a sentence of six years’ imprisonment.

• R. v. Taylor: Mr. Taylor was 18 years of age when he fatally stabbed the victim. He was convicted of manslaughter by a jury. Mr. Taylor became involved in a fight during a party in his apartment. He “sucker punched” the deceased, following which the deceased invited him outside to fight. Mr. Taylor accepted and picked up a steak knife. He concealed it and told some others that if the victim did not stay out of the apartment, he would use the knife. Within minutes, the victim came back into Mr. Taylor’s apartment and attacked Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor received a beating at the hands of the victim, who was encouraged by others at the party. Mr. Taylor testified that he “flailed away” with the knife as the victim was beating him, to defend himself. The victim received eight stab wounds, three of which were to the torso — one being a fatal stab wound to the heart.

  In sentencing Mr. Taylor to six years’ imprisonment, Hackland R.S.J. concluded that “a somewhat reduced sentence is warranted due to the severity of the beating that Mr. Taylor received at the time he employed the knife.”[^25] He concluded that provocation reduced the moral blameworthiness surrounding Mr. Taylor’s use of the knife. He also considered Mr. Taylor’s youth and his excellent prospects for rehabilitation.

[40] I have considered the cases provided by counsel. In doing so, I recognize that no two cases are the same. For example, one involved a particularly vulnerable and defenseless victim who was attacked in his own home. More wounds were inflicted, causing death. Some accused disposed of property following the incident. Some accused were on probation at the time. Some victims were strangers to the perpetrators. Most cases involved young people with knives in a situation that got out of control.

[41] It is my view that the aspect which sets the sentence of Mr. Pintyi apart from others is the provocation resulting from Mr. Racz’s prior conduct and in particular, his threats to kill Mr. Pintyi immediately before the incident.

c. Other Considerations: Pre-sentence Custody

[42] It is agreed that Mr. Pintyi should be given credit for the time he has spent in pre-sentence custody, pursuant to s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code and R. v. Summers.[^26]

[43] In certain circumstances, harsh pre-sentence incarceration conditions can be relevant in the determination of an appropriate sentence.[^27] The approach to be taken in considering the harsh conditions of pre-sentence incarceration was clarified by Doherty J.A. in R. v. Marshall:[^28]

The “Duncan” credit is not a deduction from the otherwise appropriate sentence, but is one of the factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. Particularly punitive pretrial incarceration conditions can be a mitigating factor to be taken into account with the other mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at the appropriate sentence from which the “Summers” credit will be deducted. Because the “Duncan” credit is one of the mitigating factors to be taken into account, it cannot justify the imposition of a sentence which is inappropriate, having regard to all of the relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.

[44] In light of Marshall, the practice of assigning a credit of a specific number of days or months to punitive conditions of pre-trial custody is not to be encouraged. It is a mitigating factor. However, Doherty J.A. stated at para. 53 that, “quantification is not necessarily inappropriate” so long as it does not skew the calculation of the ultimate sentence.[^29] In other words, if a Duncan credit is given, it cannot be given excessive mitigating effect such that it renders the sentence unfit.[^30]

Analysis

[45] The objectives of denunciation, deterrence and isolation must be given paramount consideration in this case. Other considerations such as rehabilitation are not to be ignored but, in the case of Mr. Pintyi, must assume a subordinate role.[^31]

[46] I find the following to be the aggravating factors:

• Mr. Pintyi responded to verbal threats with physical violence.
• Mr. Pintyi made threats prior to Mr. Racz’s arrival.
• Mr. Pintyi used a significant instrument as a weapon: a three-foot-long steel pipe. (However, I find that Mr. Pintyi was in possession of the pipe because he acquired it in the context of his employment. There is no evidence that Mr. Pintyi possessed the pipe with the intent of using it as a weapon.)
• Mr. Racz was not armed at the time of the incident.
• Mr. Pintyi exacted gratuitous violence on Mr. Racz, kicking him twice when he was down.
• There were significant injuries incurred by Mr. Racz and his suffering was long. He was alive for approximately seven weeks before he succumbed to his injuries.
• Although no Victim Impact Statements have been filed, the grief of Mr. Racz’s family was apparent when his mother and brother testified at trial. They have suffered the loss of a loved one as have Mr. Racz’s three children. There is obvious anguish and heartbreak with the loss of a loved one.

[47] I find the following to be the mitigating factors:

• Mr. Pintyi was a relatively young man at the time of the incident, 26 years of age.
• Mr. Pintyi has had a difficult upbringing. He fled Hungary to escape persecution and lead a better life. Achieving a better life was difficult as he dealt with the verbal and physical abuse levelled at him by Mr. Racz.
• Mr. Racz’s conduct also affected Mr. Pintyi’s wife and daughter. They had to move homes to avoid Mr. Racz. They even had to seek refuge in hotels to avoid Mr. Racz. In addition, Mr. Pintyi had to call the police on his brother-in-law to protect himself and his family. These are the actions of a pro-social member of our society. Mr. Pintyi did what he could to avoid having a confrontation with Mr. Racz. He was avoiding conflict, not encouraging it. Nothing worked.
• There is evidence that Mr. Racz was acting in an aggressive manner prior to the incident, threatening to kill Mr. Pintyi and perhaps reaching for his neck as Mr. Pintyi approached. There is some element of self-defence to Mr. Pintyi’s actions in the circumstances.
• Mr. Pintyi’s action of hitting Mr. Racz, once with the pipe, was instinctive and was reasonable in the circumstances. Mr. Pintyi reacted because of provocation by Mr. Racz.
• Mr. Pintyi did not flee the scene. He sat on the curb and waited to be arrested. He was cooperative when arrested.
• Mr. Pintyi pleaded not guilty to murder at the commencement of the proceeding but guilty to manslaughter. Crown counsel, quite properly, did not accept the plea. However, the ASF was filed almost immediately. Mr. Pintyi agreed that Crown counsel had proven the essential elements of manslaughter by his agreement. This is a significant sign of remorse.
• Mr. Pintyi has developed PTSD since the incident (which is not uncommon). Everyone agrees he has suffered complex trauma and did so at the time of the incident.
• Mr. Pintyi appears to have worked hard and in various capacities since his arrival in Canada. The Court is advised that he will return to employment in landscaping and junk collection.
• Mr. Pintyi has been subject to harsh conditions of confinement during his pre-trial detention: excessive lockdowns and triple bunking.
• Mr. Pintyi is remorseful for his actions. This was evidenced by his agreement to having committed the offence of manslaughter, his evidence at trial and his elocution at sentencing. Mr. Pintyi apologized to Mr. Racz’s family, his own family, and our community.

[48] I find that Mr. Pintyi was provoked and such provocation should be considered a mitigating factor. As Harris J. discussed in Beals, at para. 63, “Provocation as a mitigating fact acknowledges human frailty when anger gets the better of a person and leads them to commit acts of violence.” It is a pertinent factor on sentencing. The law provides that: “Where the victim provokes the commission of an offence, ordinarily this will affect the Court’s general consideration of the gravity of the offence.”[^32]

[49] Mr. Racz’s repeated attacks, both verbally and physically, are significant factors reducing the moral culpability of Mr. Pintyi and the resulting sentence. That said, the mitigation must be “measured and proportionate because of the strong societal interest in discouraging acts of revenge and revenge motivation”.[^33]

[50] As I have stated above, the range of sentences for manslaughter is very broad. That is because there is a wide range of factual circumstances which can underpin a manslaughter conviction. Mr. Pintyi’s act of assaulting Mr. Racz with the steel pipe, once, on the head caused Mr. Racz’s death. This injury was incurred in the context of provoking conduct by Mr. Racz. I find Mr. Pintyi’s level of moral blameworthiness to be at the lower end of the scale. However, a sentence of imprisonment is necessary to satisfy the principles of general deterrence and denunciation.

[51] The sentence imposed must serve the goals of protecting the public, expressing society’s denunciation for the offences, and deterring others from committing similar offences – particularly because a life was lost. But the sentence I impose cannot crush Mr. Pintyi’s prospects for rehabilitation. Based on the record before me, I believe that Mr. Pintyi has good prospects for rehabilitation.

[52] The court must balance Mr. Pintyi’s mostly positive antecedents, the mitigating effects of his difficult life in Hungary and the repeated abusive conduct levelled at him by Mr. Racz in Canada. Further, the assault of Mr. Racz on March 11, 2022 was not planned. Mr. Pintyi testified, and I believe, that he simply intended to scare Mr. Racz with the pipe but instinctively hit Mr. Racz on the head with it, in the context of a very heated exchange and threats made by Mr. Racz that he was going to kill Mr. Pintyi.

[53] Having considered the circumstances of the offence, and of the offender, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors, I was of the view that a total sentence of six years was appropriate. However, his sentence should be adjusted for the exceptionally harsh conditions under which Mr. Pintyi spent his time in pre-sentence custody (i.e., the “Duncan” credit). I find that Mr. Pintyi has experienced conditions that are more difficult or punitive than the restrictions normally associated with pre-sentence detention.

[54] There has been hardship suffered due to the lockdowns and conditions in the jail, most of which were the result of staff shortages. I have said it before and I echo the sentiments of my colleagues, that although the message is being sent to our government that they must properly staff institutions to permit inmates to reside in humane conditions, that issue has remained, for the most part, unresolved.[^34] The ongoing unacceptable treatment of inmates in the detention centers is a significant mitigating factor.

[55] While the Duncan credit is properly considered a mitigating circumstance rather than a credit against sentence, it is my view that quantification can be a useful tool if used with appropriate care. Quantification is not a precise mathematical calculation but is simply an approximation of how much of a sentence reduction is appropriate in Mr. Pintyi’s circumstances while imposing a sentence that is proportional and individualized.[^35]

[56] While I would have been inclined to impose a sentence of six years’ imprisonment, I have taken the circumstances of Mr. Pintyi’s pre-sentence incarceration into consideration to impose a sentence of five years’ imprisonment. A sentence of five years’ imprisonment is a fit and substantial one that reflects the circumstances surrounding Mr. Pintyi’s conviction for manslaughter.

[57] Mr. Pintyi has spent 1,187 days in custody since March 11, 2022 (or 39 months).[^36] Enhanced at 1.5 days for each day spent in pre-sentence custody (pursuant to Summers), Mr. Pintyi will be given credit for 1,780 days (or 59.35 months). The time served will be modified to reflect a sentence of time served of 60 months plus 1 day.

The Sentence Imposed

[58] Mr. Pintyi is sentenced to five years’ imprisonment plus one day for the offence of manslaughter. Mr. Pintyi will be given credit of five years. Mr. Pintyi will be required to serve one day in prison.

[59] Mr. Pintyi has been convicted of an indictable offence involving the use of violence that is punishable by life imprisonment. As such, a prohibition order under s. 109(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code is mandatory and is imposed for 10 years. Pursuant to s. 109(2)(b), I direct that Mr. Pintyi be prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited or restricted weapon, ammunition, or explosive substance for life.

[60] Manslaughter is a primary designated offence within the meaning of s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code and accordingly, a DNA order is mandatory. Therefore, I direct that Mr. Pintyi provide a sample of his DNA.

Released: June 9, 2025

[^1]: R. v. Pintyi, 2025 ONSC 2552. [^2]: 2016 ONCA 754. [^4]: Mr. Pintyi is currently a landed immigrant. [^5]: R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, para 41. [^6]: R. v. Batisse, 2009 ONCA 114, paras 32-35; R. v. Hamilton, paras 95-96; and R. v. Sharma, 2019 ONCA 274, para 23. [^7]: R. v. Carrière, para 10; R. v. Kehl, 2019 ONSC 7561, para 37. [^8]: R. v. M. (C.A.), para 40. [^9]: R. v. MacKinnon, 2022 ONSC 1349, para 62; s. 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code. [^10]: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, paras 53-60. [^11]: R. v. Clarke, para 8; R. v. Devaney, paras 33-34; R. v. Cleyndert, paras 12-13; and R. v. Tahir, 2016 ONCA 136. [^12]: R. v. Head (1985), 10 O.A.C. 87 (C.A.). [^13]: R. v. Simcoe, para 24. [^14]: Clarke, at para. 6, citing R. v. Stone, para 237. [^25]: Ibid, at para. 29. [^26]: 2014 SCC 26. [^27]: Duncan, at para. 6. [^28]: 2021 ONCA 344, para. 52. [^29]: Marshall, at para. 53. [^30]: MacKinnon, para. 69. [^31]: Carrière, at para. 18. [^32]: Canadian Sentencing Digest, “Provocation”, (Thomson Reuters Canada, 10th ed.), at §3:55; Stone, at paras. 232-237; R. v. Mullin. [^33]: Beals, at para. 64, citing R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 24, paras 57-58. [^34]: R. v. Persad, 2020 ONSC 188. [^35]: R. v. Mojassam, 2022 ONSC 4951; R. v. Bernard, 2021 ONSC 5817; R. v. Noor, 2024 ONSC 6026; and R. v. Shaikh and Tanoli, 2024 ONSC 774. [^36]: For ease of the math, I have rounded this number up.