REPORTED DECISIONS
(This page contains both reported and unreported decisions. Reported decisions means that the Judgement was published online. Unreported decisions means the Judgement was not reported online. There is no difference between a reported and unreported decision. Reported decisions below have been hyperlinked. The page only contains cases of Mr. Lust that go to trial. Many of Mr. Lust's cases do not reach trial).
SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES
A.N. was charged with two counts of sexual assault against two different complainants, B.E., and F.J. A.N. was a massage therapist and both complainant's were previous clients, who alleged that A.N. sexually touched them during their massage. The matter proceeded to a 3 day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. A.N. testified in his own defence.
Justice Boxall of the Ontario Court of Justice acquitted A.N of all charges. Boxall J. found that the complainant, B.E., was unreliable and her evidence could not support a conviction. Though Boxall J. had some concerns about the reliability of F.J., His Honour could not reject the testimony of A.N., who denied the allegations. Boxall J. acquitted A.N. of the charges against F.J. because he could not disbelieve A.N.'s testimony.
R. v. D.A #1, 2024 ONSC
D.A was charged with a series of serious charges against his former partner, L.A. He was charged with sexual assault, drugging (administer a noxious substance), assault causing bodily harm, assault by strangulation, assault, uttering death threats, and mischeif to property. If convicted, D.A. faced up to 5 years in federal prison. The matter proceeded to a 2-week Judge and Jury trial in front of Justice Hooper of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
Mr. Lust cross-examined the complainant over a 3 day period where he was able to elicit significant contridictions from L.A., and show to the Court that L.A. was an unreliable and uncredible witness. At the end of Mr. Lust's cross-examination, the Prosecutor withdrew all charges against D.A.
R. v. S.S., 2024 ONCJ
S.S. was charged with sexually assaulting a waitress at a bar in the Ottawa area. Furthermore, S.S. was charged with assault and uttering a death threat following a physical altercation with the bouncer at the bar. On arrest, police searched S.S. and seized illicit drugs in his possession, and charged him with possessing illicit drugs.The matter proceeded to a 3 day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Mr. Lust successfully argued that S.S. was illegally searched on arrest, and the drugs were excluded from the evidence.
Blouin J. acquitted S.S. of all charges. Blouin J. found that during cross-examination, the complainant implicitly agreed with Mr. Lust that the sexual touching could have been accidental. Blouin J. also found that following Mr. Lust's cross-examination of the bouncer, the bouncer's evidence was exaggerated and unbelieveable and put no weight on his evidence.
D.A was charged with offences against the complainant, L.A., out of the Gatineau jurisdiction. He was charged with obstruction of justice, uttering a death threat, criminal harassment, and breaching a court order. Prior to this, D.A. was charged in Ottawa against the complainant, L.A., for serious offences, including sexual assault, drugging, and aggravated assault. After the Ottawa charges were laid, L.A. called Gatineau Police claiming that D.A. had sent her messages threatening her and telling her to change her story in the Ottawa case (witness tampering). The matter proceeded to a 3 day trial in the Court of Quebec.
Justice Meredith of the Court of Quebec acquitted D.A. of all charges against L.A. Meredith J. found that once Mr. Lust began his cross-examination of L.A., L.A's evidence became unbelieveable and untrustworthy, noting that when Mr. Lust cross-examined her, L.A. became "confusing, evasive, and changed her story to explain inconsistencies."
R. v. C.Z.L et al, [2023] O.J. No. 4929
C.Z.L and four others were charged with human sex trafficking. The matter proceeded to trial over 7 weeks in the Ontario Court of Justice. C.Z.L was acquitted after Legault J. found that the complainant was "neither reliable nor credible... she provided evasive answers to many questions. She was at times disingenuous, failing to be candid with the Court, at times misleading and her memory of events was not reliable."
B.D., was charged with serious offences, including aggravated sexual assault, which caries a maximum penalty of life in prison, and assault. The matter proceeded to trial over 2 weeks in the Ontario Court of Justice. The Crown filed a hearsay application to admit the complainant's statement to police because the complainant was unavailable to testify. After two weeks of vigorous cross-examination and arguments, Lipson J. of the Ontario Court of Justice ruled that the complainant's substantive statement to police was inadmissible. Lipson J., ruled in B.D.s favor and excluded the statement. The assault was dismissed on a directed verdict motion brought by Mr. Lust and B.D. was subsequently aquitted of the remaining charge.
R. v. D.L., 2022 ONCJ
D.L. was charged with several counts of sexual assault against a person under 16. The matter proceeded to a preliminary inquiry in the Ontario Court of Justice in L'Orignal. Mr. Lust cross-examined for several daysy. Following Mr. Lust's cross, D'Amours J. of the Ontario Court of Juustice was left in such doubt that he found there was not enough evidence against D.L. to proceed to trial. D.L. was acquitted of all charges at the preliminary inquiry.
DOMESTIC ASSAULT CASES
C.A was charged with a series of serious domestic assaults against his former girlfriend, E.B. This included allegations that C.A had intentionally broke the complainant's wrist during a fight. On a other occassion, C.A is alleged to have slapped the complainant so hard he disclocated her jaw requiring suregery. On another occassion, C.A. allegedly slammed the complainant on the ground and strangeled her. The matter proceeded to a 5 day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.
Justice Wills of the Ontario Court of Justice acquitted C.A. of all assault against the complainant, E.B. Wills J. found that E.B.'s evidence could not be accepted by the court because of a lack of reliability and credability. Through Mr. Lust's cross-examination, he was able to show that E.B. had a motive to fabricate the allegations in court. Wills J. noted that when Mr. Lust cross-examined E.B., it was apparent that E.B.'s memory was unreliable and that she had given inconsistent statements in the past. Ultimately, Wills J. concluded that despite the photographic and medical evidence corroborating E.B.'s version of events, evidence of E.B.'s motivation to fabricate the allegations was so strong that her evidence could not be accepted.
R. v. A.V., 2024 ONCJ
A.V. was charged with a series of domestic assaults against his former romantic partner, J.F. The matter proceeded to a 4 day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in front of Justice Bourgeois.
During Mr. Lust's cross-examination, J.F. refused to answer questions and acknowledge inconsistencies in her evidence. Bourgeois J. had to repeatedley intervene and order J.F. to answer questions. In the middle of Mr. Lust's cross-examination, J.F. disclosed new text messages between herself and A.V. that she had not previously disclosed to police, in an attempt to combat suggestions made to her by Mr. Lust in cross-examination. In light of the new disclosure, the case was adjourned mid-trial.
Mr. Lust filed a s.11(b) Charter application (which is an application to have the charges dismissed for delay), arguing that the late disclosure of text messages delayed the trial beyond what was reasonable. Bourgeois J. agreed that they delay was unreasonable and dismissed all charges against A.V.
R. v. T.O., [2024] O.J. No. 425
T.O., a first-time offender, was charged with domestic assault and uttering death threats following an alleged dispute with his partner. The trial proceeded over 3 days in the Ontario Court of Justice. Justice Alder acquitted T.O. after finding that she could not accept the complainant's evidence. The complainant exaggerated her story, was inconsistent during cross-examination, and at times became argumentative with Mr. Lust.
DUI CASES (drinking and driving, impaired operation, "over 80")
P.D.B. was charged with several offences arising from a motor vehicle accident. He was charged with danger driving, impaired driving by alcohol, and having over .80mg of alcohol in his blood at the time of driving. The matter proceeded to a 7 day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Shamai.
Mr. Lust argued that P.D.B was not responsible for the accident, nor was he impaired at the time of the accident. Mr. Lust envoked the defence of s.320.14(5) wherein an accused person may be found not guilty if they provide evidence that they consumed alcohol after they drove, and a qualified forensic toxicologist testifies that the accused blood alcohol content is comensurate with post-driving drinking. Through Mr. Lust cross-examination he was able to show that the tow-truck driver involved with P.D.B.'s accident was responsible for the accident and not P.D.B. Furthermore Justice Shamai accepted P.D.B.'s evidence of his alcohol consumption and accepted the Defence's forensic toxicologist experts evidence and acquitted P.D.B. of all charges.
R. v. A.J.M., 2024 OCJ
A.J.M. was charged with driving while impaired by drugs following an accident in the Ottawa area in 2022. The trial was scheduled for 3 days in the Ontario Court of Justice. The trial was rescheduled shortly before the trial commenced. Mr. Lust filed a s.11(b) Charter application alleging that his client, A.J.M.'s constitutonal right to a speedy trial was violated. Upon receiving the application, the Prosecutor agreed and withdrew all charged against A.J.M.
R. v. A.A., 2022 QCCQ
A.A. was charged with impaired driving, refusing to provide a breath sample, resisting arrest, fleeing police and driving while prohibited. Police believed they saw A.A. drive a vehicle while impaired and while under a driving prohibition. A high speed chase ensued resulting in police breaking into A.A.s home without a warrant to arrest him. The matter proceeded to a 3 day trial in the Court of Quebec. After lengthy cross-examination of the arresting officer, Mr. Lust applied to the court to exclude the evidence of A.A.'s refusal given a breach of his Charter rights. Phillippe J. of the Court of Quebec agreed, excluding the evidence and aquitting him of refusal. Phillippe J. also had a reasonable doubt on all other counts and A.A. was acquitted following trial.
R. v. V.M., 2021 ONCJ
V.M was charged with possessing a prohibted weapon and refusing to comply with a breath demand following a traffic stop. The matter proceeded to a 4 day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Mr. Lust was able to establish that V.M.'s rights to counsel were violated by police. V.M. was acquitted by Boxall J. of the Ontario Court of Justice.
R. v. D.K., [2022] O.J. No. 3495
D.K. was charged with refusing to provide a roadside breath test. The matter proceeded to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Oshawa. Following Mr. Lust's cross-examination of the investigating officer, Baker.J, acquitted D.K. Baker J. found that the officer had breached D.K.'s right to counsel and that the officer did make a proper demand.
DRUG TRAFFICKING CASES (posession for the purpose of trafficking)
R. v. G.M. et al, 2024 ONCJ
G.B., along with 4 others, were charged with possessing large quatities of schedule I substances for the purpose of trafficking, follow an investigation into a drug operation in the Ottawa area. Police obtained a search warrant and located largue quantitites of drugs and money and charged 5 people.
Mr. Lust filed a motion arguing that the search warrant was unlawful and that the evidence resulting from the search warrant needed to be excluded. Justice Perkins-McVey of the Ontario Court of Justice agreed that the search warrant was unlawfully made and quashed the warrant, excluding all evidence and entering an acquittal for G.B.
R. v. E.N., [2022] O.J. No. 5507
R. v. B.B., 2020 ONCJ
B.B. was charged with serious drug trafficking offences following a lengthy undercover investigation by Ottawa Police that resulted in a search warrant which uncovered large quantites of illicit substances. Mr. Lust challenged the lawfulness of the warrant by way of a Garofoli application. Near the end of the application process Mr. Lust was able to convince the prosecutor that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. The Crown subsequently dropped all charges against B.B.
R. v. A.A et al, 2020 ONCJ
J.B. and others were charged with trafficking Schedule I substances, possessing Schedule I substances for the purpose of trafficking, and fleeing police. The matter proceeded to trial over 2 weeks in the Ontario Court of Justice. J.B., and the co-accused were acquitted of the charges by Boxall J., of the Ontario Court of Justice.
R. v. P.D., 2024 ONCJ
P.D was charged with two armed bank robberies while disguised in the Ottawa area. This matter proceeded to a 5 day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Mr. Lust successfully argued that P.D's right to counsel was violated by police, and his confession was excluded from the evidence. P.D. was acquitted of all charges by Blouin J. of the Ontario Court of Justice, agreeing with Mr. Lust that the Crown failed to establish the identity of the suspect.
R. v. J.B. et al, 2022 ONCJ
J.B., along with others, were charged with serious offences including armed robbery, extortion, forcible confinement, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and theft over $5,000. The case included forensic DNA and fingerprint evidence. The matter proceeded to trial over 3 weeks in the Ontario Court of Justice. Through cross-examination, Mr. Lust was able to establish that the complainant intentionally falsified the identity of J.B. Following cross-examination of the complainant, the Crown was forced to withdraw the case against J.B., and all other parties.
R. v. B.B. et al, 2023 ONCJ
B.B, along with 4 other people, were charged with an armed home invasion. On arrest, police searched and seized large quantities on illicit drugs, and B.B. was further charged with possessing illicit drugs for the purpose of trafficking. The matter proceeded to trial in the L'Orignal jurisdiction. All charged against B.B. were dismissed.