R. v. Malual, 2026 ONSC 4383

CITATION: R. v. Malual, 2026 ONSC 4383

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-91107748

DATE: 20260728

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

FRESKELA MALUAL

Defendant

M. Park, Counsel for the Crown

J. Kaldas, Counsel for the Defendant

HEARD: June 19, 2026

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

EDWARDS, J.

1Ms. Malual has pled guilty to a number of drug related offences. While she was charged with possession for the purposes of trafficking fentanyl this is not one of the charges for which Ms. Malual pled guilty. The charges she pled guilty to relate to separate instances when she trafficked methamphetamine (meth) to an undercover police officer.

2It is an agreed fact that in total, Ms. Malual trafficked 1.4 kilograms of methamphetamine and 22.36 grams of fentanyl. She trafficked about 326 grams of methamphetamine as a principal over several transactions, the rest of the methamphetamine and all of the fentanyl as a party. All transactions were initiated by police officers, who requested escalating quantities in later deals based on larger drug amounts that Ms. Malual told the undercover police officer she could obtain.

3The drug deals that give rise to Ms. Malual’s plea of guilty began on April 12, 2023 and ended on July 3, 2023. In total, it is an agreed fact that there were eight drug deals with an undercover police officer. The first drug deal involved 1.82 grams of meth. Drug deals two through seven (excluding drug deal four) involved varying amounts of meth ranging from one ounce to six ounces. Drug deal number eight involved one kilo of meth. Drug deal number four involved one ounce of fentanyl.

4It is an agreed fact that in some of the drug deals Ms. Malual received no benefit and that she did not handle the substance nor the money. In total, across all of the drug deals, Ms. Malual received approximately $2310 of which $1350 was tips from the undercover police officer.

5It is an agreed fact that Ms. Malual was an active drug user at the time of the various deals giving rise to the charges before this court for which she pled guilty.

6The Crown suggests the range of sentence presented by the facts of this case is one of a penitentiary sentence between 4 and 6 years. The Crown argues the appropriate sentence for Ms. Malual is a penitentiary sentence of four years. The defence argues the appropriate sentence is a conditional sentence.

The Circumstances of Ms. Malual

Personal, Family Information and Ms. Malual’s Criminal Record

7A review of the pre-sentence report coupled with the oral submissions from Ms. Malual’s counsel make it clear that Ms. Malual has had an extremely difficult life almost from the time of her birth. Much of the information produced below comes from the pre-sentence report.

8Ms. Malual has an extensive criminal record that begins with her first adult court conviction in March 2013 for various offences including assault and failing to comply with a recognizance x2. After March 2013, Ms. Malual’s criminal record includes 19 additional separate interactions with criminal courts largely in the Ontario Court of Justice. In total, there are approximately 60 convictions on Ms. Malual’s criminal record. Almost all of the convictions are for assault related offences as well as offences related to breaching court orders and or probation orders. Ms. Malual’s criminal record does not include any prior drug related convictions. None of her convictions resulted in substantial periods of incarceration. She has never received a penitentiary sentence.

9Significantly, at the present time, Ms. Malual is serving a suspended sentence imposed in the OCJ by Harper J in November 2025. This sentence includes a 3 year term of probation set to expire in November 2028.

10Ms. Malual was born in Ethiopia, Africa. Currently, she is thirty-six (36) years of age. She is single and has never married. She is one of four (4) children. Her parents separated when she was nine (9) years of age.

11Ms. Malual’s family was forced to flee South Sudan in 1992 due to ongoing conflict and instability. At just two (2) years of age, Ms. Malual traveled on foot from Ethiopia to a refugee camp in Kenya. The journey lasted approximately four (4) months, during which she was carried on her mother’s back.

12In her interview with the author of the pre-sentence report, Ms. Malual described the conditions as extremely harsh, noting many people lost their lives along the way due to starvation, dehydration and exhaustion. Ms. Malual remained in the refugee camp until she was 6 years of age In her interview for the pre-sentence report, Ms. Malual recalled the refugee camp conditions as deplorable. There were large numbers of displaced children living in the camp, many of whom were suffering from severe illness, malnutrition and untreated injuries. Ms. Malual recalled seeing individuals with missing limbs and witnessing widespread suffering. Ms. Malual recalled the frequent sounds of screaming and crying throughout the camp, particularly from mothers who had lost children to starvation, malaria and other preventable diseases.

13Ms. Malual related that violence was common within the refugee camp. She witnessed incidents of conflict arising from the desperate need for necessities. In one incident, an individual reportedly killed another person over a loaf of bread to feed his own children. Food insecurity was severe throughout the camp. Ms. Malual recalled periods of going four (4) to five (5) days without food while waiting for humanitarian aid.

14At approximately six (6) years of age, Ms. Malual experienced a traumatic incident in which she was thrown into the Nile River. She was subsequently rescued. Ms. Malual reported having no recollection of events between the ages of six (6) and eight (8) years of age. During this period, she was also mute.

15For a period of two (2) years, Ms. Malual and her sister resided with their grandmother in Sudan while their mother served in the army. While residing in Sudan, Ms. Malual disclosed that she was the victim of sexual abuse for a period of one year. She was eight (8) years of age at the time. As a result of her victimization, Ms. Malual described herself as a “violent child.”

16After her mother returned, they left Sudan and moved to Egypt when Ms. Malual was ten (10) years of age. She described her time in Egypt as “peaceful”, despite carrying significant responsibilities.

17She was tasked with feeding the children, cleaning the household and selling tomatoes by the roadside for additional income.

18Ms. Malual arrived in Canada at the age of twelve (12) years. She reported feeling traumatized upon her arrival but stated that she was eventually able to adjust over time. Ms. Malual noted that her mother remarried when she was ten (10) years of age, and five (5) children were born from that relationship. Ms. Malual described her stepfather as an unkind individual who was physically and emotionally abusive towards the entire family. Ms. Malual stated, “I used to beat him up every time he would touch my siblings.”

19Upon leaving school at age 16, Ms. Malual moved out of the family home to live with a friend. She indicated that her mother did not support her decision to leave school and home. She reported that her friend introduced her to alcohol, and that her drinking soon became a concern. Ms. Malual relayed that her drinking quickly brought her to the attention of police, and she has had ongoing involvement with the criminal justice system since the age of seventeen (17). Additionally, she described being involved in several domestic relationships with partners who were abusive and struggled with substance misuse.

20Since March 2026, Ms. Malual has been residing with her mother, grandmother, surety and five (5) siblings in London, Ontario.

Education and Employment

21Ms. Malual has not completed high school. Grade 10 was the highest level successfully completed. While attending school, Ms. Malual was suspended on several occasions for behavioural issues. Additionally, she noted being expelled for getting into a physical altercation on school property. Ms. Malual indicated that she has never been formally diagnosed with a learning disability, however, Ms. Malual suspects she is dyslexic.

22Ms. Malual is currently unemployed and receiving financial assistance and benefits through a provincial program. Ms. Malual has a mixed work history beginning in early adulthood.

23From ages 18 to 21, she owned and operated her own clothing store. She then worked for two (2) years at a car parts store as a safety supervisor. Following this, she spent four (4) years doing seasonal landscaping work and later worked for one year as a residential painter with a friend’s company.

Substance Use and Addictions

24Ms. Malual described herself as a “full blown alcoholic” at seventeen (17) years of age. She acknowledged using alcohol to self medicate. Currently, she consumes 2 to 3 beers on occasion. Ms. Malual relayed that she is trying to be mindful of her consumption as she is fully informed about the serious risks and negative effects of consuming alcohol while receiving medication via injection.

25Ms. Malual disclosed that she will occasionally use methamphetamine whenever she is able to get it which has not been often, given her financial situation.

26Ms. Malual reported that in 2022 she completed a 21-day residential treatment program in Toronto. Additionally, in 2023 she was involved with outreach services for mental health and addictions in the Newmarket area. Ms. Malual believes she would benefit from individual counselling to address her substance use.

Mental Health Issues

27Ms. Malual reported that her mental health began to decline around age 21. She relayed that she has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety and depression. She is currently prescribed a monthly injectable medication (lnvega), although her compliance has been inconsistent. She reported that when she does not take her medication, she experiences auditory hallucinations, including both positive and negative voices. At times, she hears a male voice instructing her to harm herself. She also reported frequently seeing spirits. She has been hospitalized several times due to mental health crises and violence. She indicated that she recognizes when she is reaching a crisis point and will voluntarily admit herself to hospital for stabilization when needed. Ms. Malual’s last hospitalization was earlier this year.

28Ms. Malual’s mother reported to the author of the pre-sentence report that her daughter has difficulty with medication adherence. She relayed that Ms. Malual exhibits violent and aggressive behaviour towards herself and others when she is not compliant with medication.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

29The Crown acknowledges that Ms. Malual’s plea of guilty together with her admitted addiction and mental health challenges must be taken into account in mitigation of sentence. The Crown also accepts that the court should consider Ms. Malual’s very difficult life circumstances.

30The aggravating factors submitted by the Crown relate to the total quantity of meth trafficked by Ms. Malual as well as Ms. Malual’s extensive criminal record. The Crown also argues the dangerous nature of meth as being equivalent to cocaine.

The Principles of Sentencing and Analysis

31The principles of sentencing are well known. They are set out in sections 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada (the Code). It is well established that the principles of sentencing are intended for the protection of society and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society which is achieved by the denunciation of unlawful conduct; deterrence both general and specific; and the separation of an offender from society where necessary.

32Another important principle of sentencing is rehabilitation and reparation for harm done to victims and/or the community as well as the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender and an acknowledgment of the harm done.

33Another fundamental principle of sentencing is set forth in section 718.1 of the Code which requires that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence as well as the degree of responsibility of the offender. A sentence that is to be imposed must be a sentence similar to those that are imposed on similar-like offenders in similar circumstances.

34It is important to recall that Ms. Malual was not convicted of trafficking in fentanyl. Nonetheless, it is an admitted fact on sentencing that Ms. Malual did traffic approximately 22 grams of fentanyl and as such the warnings from the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46 and the Court of Appeal in R. v. Lynch, 2022 ONCA 109, are worth repeating as it relates to anyone involved in trafficking fentanyl. General deterrence and denunciation are clearly at the forefront of any sentence that involves trafficking in fentanyl.

35While significant penitentiary terms may be the norm as it relates to someone convicted of trafficking in fentanyl, paragraph 36 of the reasons of Brown and Martin JJ. in Parranto make clear that ranges of sentence are guidelines and not hard and fast rules. It is also worth reflecting on the reasons at para 36 in Parrranto where judges are reminded that in imposing a sentence they should, “individualize sentencing both in method and outcome”, and “[d]ifferent methods may even be required to account properly for relevant systemic and background factors”.

The Sentencing Jurisprudence

36The Crown provided the court with a number of cases in support of the Crown’s position that an appropriate sentence to be imposed on Ms. Malual is one of four years.

37In R. v. Villanueva, 2007 ONCJ 87 the accused pled guilty to trafficking 6 ounces of meth; possession of 1 kilogram of meth for the purposes of the trafficking; and trafficking 2.2 kilos of a substance held out to be meth. The Court determined that the accused was a mid level to high level trafficker. The accused was a youthful first offender (22). The court imposed a sentence of 5.5 years. In imposing this sentence the court noted that crystal meth is a hard drug that is causing serious and increasing danger to society. The court emphasized that mid level traffickers of hard drugs could expect to receive a substantial penitentiary term of imprisonment.

38In R. v. Ticzon, 2018 ONCA 198, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown’s argument that the appropriate sentence to be imposed on a plea of guilty by a 28 year old offender with a limited criminal record to trafficking 64.1 grams of meth was one of 3 years’ imprisonment.

39The Court of Appeal in R. v. Graham, 2017 O.J. No 1504, reduced a sentence of three years imposed by the trial judge to one of two years . The accused pled guilty to possession of 2 ounces of meth for the purposes of trafficking. The accused was 29 years old who had experienced a difficult background including sexual abuse as a child. The accused had a significant criminal record but no prior drug convictions. The accused was also a drug addict.

40In R. v. Ho, 2011 O.J. No 6672, Molloy J found the accused person guilty of possession of 115.4 grams of crystal meth; 8.2 grams of ecstasy and 1.8 grams of ketamine for the purposes of trafficking. The accused was 45 years old. Molloy J imposed a sentence of 4 years. In imposing this sentence Molloy J observed that it was arguable that the range of sentence exceeded the 3-4 year range suggested by the Crown. Molloy J also made an important observation about the correlation of the amount of drugs to the sentence to be imposed. At para 63, Molloy J stated:

63 Essentially, Mr. Ho was a mid level commercial dealer. He was not selling at the very bottom street level, nor does he appear to be at the highest level. I agree with the submissions of the defence that the amount of drugs involved is an important factor in sentencing. However, there is not a direct mathematical correlation between the amount of drug involved and the appropriate sentence. It does not follow that a person who has twice as much of a given drug deserves twice the sentence. There are simply too many variables to turn sentencing into that kind of mathematical exercise.

41In R. v. Young, 2020 ONSC 1394, Kelly J imposed a sentence of 5 years in connection with the accused’s plea of guilty to possession of 284 grams and 72 grams of crystal meth for the purposes of trafficking. The accused was 41 years old who had addiction issues. The accused was indigenous. There was evidence of a difficult childhood reflected in a Gladue report. In addition, the accused had an extensive criminal record. In imposing the 5 year sentence, Kelly J endorsed the Crown’s starting position that the appropriate range of sentence was 8-9 years but reduced the sentence given the compelling circumstances reflected in the Gladue report. Kelly J. explicitly rejected the defence submission of 3 years as being “simply too low.”

42In R. v. Rile, 2016 ONSC 7991, Allen J sentenced the accused to 2.5 years in relation to his conviction after a jury trial to possession of 554 grams of meth for the purposes of trafficking. The accused had a prior record for a meth offence. Noteworthy the accused was 32 years old and had addiction issues. In this case the Crown sought a sentence of 5 years. In imposing the sentence of 2.5 years, Allen J emphasized the large quantity of meth and the commercial reasons why the accused was involved in selling drugs; this despite the fact the accused was a drug addict himself.

43In R. v. Pham, 2016 ONSC 7943, the accused was convicted of trafficking 522.94 grams of meth. The accused was 40 years old with a limited criminal record. The Crown sought a sentence of 5 to 8 years. Mew J determined that the appropriate sentence was one of 4.5 years and in doing so observed at paragraph 32 of his reasons that meth is an extremely pervasive and dangerous drug.

44A joint submission of Crown and defence in R. v. Copeland, 2007 CanLII 37232 led to a sentence of 3 years after a trial in which the accused was found guilty of trafficking 280 grams of meth and 12.71 grams of cocaine. The accused was 23 years old and had an unrelated criminal record involving an offence of violence. Copeland is noteworthy as the comments of Spies J at paragraph 32 are some of the first from this court linking the serious nature of meth to that of cocaine. Similar comments can be found in R. v. Liu, 2009 ONCJ 265 at paragraph 24 of his reasons where Bourque J imposed a sentence of 6 years for possession of over one kilo of meth for the purposes of trafficking. The accused was determined to be a mid-level trafficker. He was 27 years old and had entered a plea of guilty.

Is a Conditional Sentence Available as an Appropriate Sentence? The Principles to be Applied

45The real issue presented by the significant gap in the sentencing submissions of Crown and defence counsel is whether a conditional sentence is available to Ms. Malual.

46A conditional sentence contemplated by section 742.1 of the Code sets forth a test that has several elements. These are as follows:

a. The term of imprisonment must be less than two years.

b. Service of the sentence in the community must not endanger the safety of the community; and

c. It must be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in section 718.2.

47The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 [2000] 1 SCR 61 requires a sentencing judge who is considering a conditional sentence to proceed in two stages. The court as part of the first stage, must determine if a conditional sentence is available. In that regard, the court need not impose a term of imprisonment of a fixed duration; but rather, the court need only exclude two possibilities: probationary measures and a penitentiary term. If it is determined that a conditional sentence is available, the sentencing judge must at the second stage then determine if a conditional sentence is appropriate.

48It is important to note that a conditional sentence while it does not involve an offender being incarcerated in a penitentiary, it is nonetheless a “punitive sanction.” The Supreme Court in Proulx and the Court of Appeal in R. v. Ali, 2022 ONCA 736 at paragraph 30 have both observed that a conditional sentence is a punitive sanction that can achieve denunciation and deterrence and may be more effective in achieving goals of rehabilitation.

49As it relates to the possibility of a conditional sentence the Court of Appeal in Morris at paragraph 180 notes that,

When the appropriate sentencing range includes sentences at or below the two-year mark, a sentencing judge must give careful consideration to the imposition of a conditional sentence. As outlined earlier, conditional sentences, properly used, can ameliorate the longstanding problem of over incarceration of young Black men.

50While Ms. Malual may not be a Black male person she is a person from a racialized minority.

51The reasons of Nakatsuru J in R. v. Stewart, 2024 ONSC 281 are instructive in terms of the analysis that the Court must conduct when considering whether to impose a conditional sentence. Stewart dealt with an accused who pled guilty to possessing fentanyl and a loaded prohibited handgun. Both of these offences are clearly very serious offences that might normally result in a lengthy penitentiary sentence. Nonetheless, after an extensive analysis Nakatsuru J determined that a conditional sentence was not excluded as a possible sentence.

52Having determined that a penitentiary sentence could be excluded in Stewart, Nakatsuru J. then went on to determine whether a conditional sentence would endanger the community. He determined that serving his sentence in the community posed little if any risk.

53The Crown at no time suggested that Ms. Malual would pose any risk to the public if she served her sentence in the community. The Crown’s position, simply put, is that a conditional sentence order is untenable given the quantity of meth involved and Ms. Malual’s criminal record which reflects numerous convictions that relate to disobeying court orders.

54As part of his analysis in determining that a conditional sentence was appropriate on the facts before him in Stewart, Nakatsuru J then went on to deal with the question of whether a conditional sentence was consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. As part of his analysis in that regard, Nakatsuru J. at paras 59-61 stated:

[59] At the second stage of the test for a conditional sentence, I must do a comprehensive evaluation of the appropriateness of a conditional sentence for the particular offender, considering the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing as provided in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

[60] For these offences, as stated time and again, the need for a sentence that deters and denounces is primary. The question is whether a jail sentence to be served in the community will achieve this on the facts of this case.

[61] Consistency with other cases is an important consideration. When I assess this, I find that a conditional sentence can meet deterrence and denunciation needs. Even for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, depending on the circumstances, a conditional sentence has been imposed in other cases.

55In imposing a conditional sentence, Nakatsuru J. also considered what are often referred to as Morris factors and noted that the courts must “do better, when the facts call for it, when it comes to the overincarceration of Black offenders. A conditional sentence, in the right case, is an ideal way to tackle this difficult problem.” (Stewart, at para 67; R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680)

56In imposing a conditional sentence, Nakatsuru J stated at para 69:

[69] I find that there are exceptional circumstances in your case whereby the fundamental principles can be met by a sentence that will be served in the community. This includes deterrence and denunciation. It has been recognized that a conditional sentence is not an anathema to the implementation of these important goals of sentencing. Moreover, I agree with your lawyer that in your case, deterrence and denunciation can further be met by the tightest of house arrest conditions for the whole length of the sentence. Thus, this will be a significant punishment.

57Another instructive case in which a conditional sentence was imposed can be found in R. v. Collins, 2023 ONSC 5768, where the accused pled guilty to offences related to trafficking in cocaine, possession of a loaded handgun and breach of a s. 109 weapons prohibition order. While the ultimate sentence imposed was a conditional sentence, Code J made clear that absent exceptional circumstances the range of sentence would normally have been three to five years. The accused in Collins was not a first offender. Nonetheless, at paragraph 90 of his reasons Code J summarized the case law justifying a conditional sentence as follows:

[90] In my view, the principle that emerges from cases like Whittaker, Sellars, and Hassan is that exceptionally strong mitigating circumstances, relating to both diminished moral culpability and the complete reformation of the accused while on bail, can justify a departure from the normal need for substantial jail sentences in firearms possession and drug trafficking cases.

58There may be some who would argue that a conditional sentence is not a jail sentence. Some may argue that a conditional sentence cannot advance the goals of deterrence and denunciation where trafficking in dangerous drugs like meth and fentanyl are the underlying charges. However, the Supreme Court in Proulx at paragraphs 40-41 makes clear that a conditional sentence is not a lenient punishment and that it can provide for significant denunciation and deterrence particularly where the offender is required to take responsibility for his actions and to make reparations to the community.

59But while the jurisprudence reflected in Stewart and Collins makes clear a conditional sentence is available in appropriate circumstances, even when a dangerous drug and a gun is involved, the question this court must first ask is whether a term of imprisonment of less than two years is appropriate given the facts presented by Ms. Malual’s plea of guilty.

60Ms. Malual did not plead guilty to just one count of trafficking in meth. Her plea and the Agreed Statement of Facts reflect multiple interactions with an undercover police officer and a not insignificant quantity of meth and fentanyl. While Ms. Malual was clearly not the directing mind of a large scale drug operation she was something more than just a drug addict looking for a small profit to keep her drug habit alive. I do not discount that Ms. Malual is a drug addict. But on the facts and the jurisprudence reviewed above I do not accept that the appropriate term of imprisonment “must be less than two years.”

61I have also considered Ms. Malual’s prior criminal record in my determination as to why a sentence of less than two years would not be appropriate. Ms. Malual’s criminal record does not involve any prior drug offences. The criminal record filed as an exhibit does not reflect any lengthy jail sentence. What stands out from Ms. Malual’s criminal record are numerous convictions related to her failure to obey court orders. A conditional sentence requires the offender to abide by strict terms of release. Ms. Malual’s prior criminal record does not instil in the court confidence that she would abide by the terms of a conditional sentence.

62In imposing a sentence where an accused person will be serving his or her first significant penitentiary sentence, the impact on the accused is obvious. I am very mindful that a sentence as suggested by the Crown would remove Ms. Malual from the support system afforded to Ms. Malual by her family for the first lengthy period of time since she immigrated to Canada.

63The sentence to be imposed on Ms. Malual must nonetheless be one that focuses on denunciation and deterrence. There are numerous decisions of this court which now make it abundantly clear that meth is a very dangerous drug akin to cocaine. – see Copeland, Pham.

64The sentence to be imposed on Ms. Malual must have a punitive impact and must be significant enough that it will have a meaningfully denunciatory and deterrent effect. But while the focus must be on denunciation and deterrence both specific to Ms. Malual and in general, it is equally clear that the rehabilitation of Ms. Malual is a very relevant consideration. Ms. Malual has experienced a very difficult life. She has both addiction and mental health issues. These issues must be addressed by the penitentiary authorities where Ms. Malual is housed while serving her sentence.

65In imposing the sentence that this court ultimately imposes I have also considered whether a conditional sentence is consistent with the fundamental principles of sentencing. The Supreme Court in Proulx has acknowledged that a conditional sentence is a punitive sanction that is capable of achieving denunciation and deterrence. Given the facts reflected in the Agreed Statement of Fact as well as Ms. Malual’s criminal record I do not accept that a conditional sentence is one that would reflect the fundamental principles of sentencing. In short, a conditional sentence is not an appropriate sentence in this case.

66I do not disagree with the submissions made by Crown counsel that the range of sentence for the quantities of meth involved could (and I emphasize the word could) be in the order of 4-6 years. But it is an agreed fact that Ms. Malual received, for all intents and purposes, nothing for her role in trafficking the drugs in question.

67I take into account Ms. Malual’s lesser role in the drug hierarchy. I take into account her plea of guilty. I have especially considered Ms. Malual’s very difficult life to date. It is for that reason I reproduced as much about Ms. Malual’s life experiences from the pre sentence report in these reasons. Ms. Malual’s life experiences are a significant mitigating factor this court must take into account in imposing the appropriate sentence for Ms. Malual. I have taken into account that Ms. Malual has a drug addiction as well as mental health issues. A fit global sentence taking into account all of the principles of sentencing is one of 3 years in the penitentiary.

68As for ancillary orders, there is no dispute that a S 109 order shall issue as well as a DNA order. The cell phone and $290 seized from Ms Malual at the time of her arrest shall be forfeited.

Edwards, J.

Released: July 28, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Malual, 2026 ONSC 4383