Law360 Canada ( September 25, 2026, 10:24 AM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant from sentence of three years’ imprisonment for manslaughter. On the date of the offence, the victim wrote insulting comments about the appellant in chalk on the sidewalk. A physical altercation lasting a little more than two minutes ensued. There were several points at which the appellant attempted to withdraw from the interaction. The victim, who was intoxicated, bleeding from the head and unsteady on his feet, extended the incident by kicking the appellant’s e-bike twice. The appellant reacted by forcefully pushing the victim, causing him to fall backward and strike his head. The victim later died from his injuries. At trial, the trial judge rejected the appellant’s defence of property argument, finding that although he might have pushed the victim, he was likely angry when he did so and the push was not reasonable in the circumstances. At sentencing, the judge characterized the appellant’s degree of moral blameworthiness as moderate and concluded that the case did not fall into the category of near accident. The judge considered the entire interaction. The judge treated the victim’s provocative conduct, including the insults and kicking of the e-bike as a mitigating factor. The appellant argued that the judge erred by resting the sentence on findings inconsistent with the trial findings, by failing to recognize that the unlawful act was undertaken for a defensive purpose, by treating the case as involving more than a single application of force, and by characterizing the victim’s actions inconsistently with the evidence....