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
R. v. D.F., 2026 ONCJ
D.F., a youth, was charged with extortion, possessing child pornography, making child pornography, and communicating with a minor for a sexual purpose. The allegations were that D.F. engaged in 'sexting' with a minor and extorted the victim for sexually explicit photos. The Ottawa Police Service conducted a 10 month investigation culiminating in a search warrant for D.F.'s home, where police entered and seized cellphones and other digital devices they forensically examined and used to criminally charge D.F. The matter proceeded to trial before Justice Perkins-McVey of the Ontario Court of Justice. Mr. Lust filed a section 8 Charter application arguing that the search warrant was invalid due to stale evidence and impermissible reasoning used to justify the warrant. Perkins-McVey J. granted Mr. Lust's section 8 Charter application adopting Mr. Lust's position that the evidence relied on by police had become stale, and that the affiant of the warrant made generalizations about digital evidence and data storage that were speculative. The warrant was declared invalid, all evidence excluded, all charges dismissed.
R. v. B.T., 2026 ONCJ
B.T. was charged with one count of sexual assault against a staff member at a prominent hotel in Ottawa. The matter proceeded to trial before Justice Wills of the Ontario Court of Justice over a period of 5-days. The Prosecution failed to present their case in a timely manner, and trial continuation dates were needed. Mr. Lust filed a mid-trial s.11(b) Charter Application, seeking to have the charges dismissed for unreasonable delay. Wills J. granted the application, finding that the Prosecution failed to present their case in a timely manner, thereby violating B.T.'s constitutional right to a speedy trial, pursuant to section 11(b) of the Charter. All charges dismissed.
R. v. B.B., 2026 ONSC
B.B. was charged with one count of sexual assault against a former intimate partner. The matter proceeded to trial before Justice Sirivar of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice over a period of 3-days. Following lengthy cross-examination, Sirivar J. fully acquitted B.B. finding that the complainant's testimony lacked sufficient credability and reliability to support a conviction.
R. v. F.R.C., 2025 ONCJ
F.R.C was charged with sexual assault, and publishing intimate images without consent. The matter proceeded to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Brunet. On the first day of trial, the Crown withdrew all charges against F.R.C.
R. v. P.E., 2025 ONSC
P.E. was charged with three counts of sexual assault against a minor, and three counts of domestic assault. The matter proceeded to trial before Justice Johnston of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice over a period of 5-days. Justice Johnston acquitted P.E. of all charges. Johnston J., rejected the testimonial evidence of all complainants, finding that Mr. Lust's cross-examination of these witnesses uncovered a real possibility that the complainants colluded together to fabricate the allegations against P.E. in order to assist one of the complainants in a concurrent custody battle against P.E.
R. v. P.K., 2025 ONCJ
P.K. was charged with one count of sexual assault and one count of criminal harassment against the complainant. The only issue at trial was Identification; whether P.K. was the person who sexually assaulted the complainant. The matter proceeded to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Loignon over a period of 4-days. Justice Loignon acquitted P.K. of all charges finding that the Prosecutor had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that P.K. was the perpatrator. Adopting the submissions of Mr. Lust, Loignon J., found that the cross-racial identification of P.K. as the perpatrator was unreliable, and acquitted him on that basis.
A.N., an RMT, was charged with two counts of sexual assault against two different clients. The matter proceeded to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Boxall over a period of 3-days. Justice Boxall acquitted A.N of all charges. Finding that the complainant's evidence was not sufficiently reliable to support a conviction.
R. v. D.A #1, 2024 ONSC
D.A faced a serious set of charges against his former partner, including sexual assault, drugging, assault causing bodily harm, assault by strangulation, assault, uttering death threats, and mischeif to property. 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. 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 one count of sexual assault against a waitress at a bar, and one count of assault and uttering a death threat against the bouncer. On arrest, police searched S.S. and seized illicit drugs in his possession, and charged him with possessing prohibited drugs.The matter proceeded to a 3-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Blouin 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 the bouncer's testimony was not credible or reliable
D.A was charged with charged with obstruction of justice, uttering a death threat, criminal harassment, and breaching a court order relating to a complainant in concurrent sexual assault trial. Prior to this, D.A. was charged in Ottawa against the complainant, for serious offences, including sexual assault. After the Ottawa charges were laid, the complainant called Gatineau Police claiming that D.A. had sent her threatening messages, telling her to change her story in the Ottawa case (witness tampering). The matter proceeded to trial in the Court of Quebec before Justice Meredith over a 3-day period.
Justice Meredith acquitted D.A. of all charges, finding that once Mr. Lust began his cross-examination of the complainant, her evidence became unbelieveable and untrustworthy, noting that when Mr. Lust cross-examined her, she 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 before Justice Lipson. 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 of aggravated sexual assault.
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 days. 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
M.A., was charged with committing a domestic assault against his former spouse, A.M. M.A. and A.M. arrived in Canada in 2017 to complete their PhDs, where they subsequently worked as engineers at the same company. A.M. accused M.A. of kicking, pushing, and throwing objects at her causing her to seek medical treatment. The matter proceeded to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Brunet over a period of 3-days.
Justice Brunet acquitted M.A. of all charges, finding that Mr. Lust's cross-examination of the complainant was "the engine of truth" where Mr. Lust elicited "problematic evidence... leaving me with concerns about her credability and reliability." Mr. Lust was able to adduce compelling evidence that A.M. fabricated the allegations to leverage her position in negotiations against M.A. in a concurrent family court battle.
A.J. was charged with a series of serious domestic assaaults against his former spouse. This included allegations that A.J. had broke the complainant's nose by punching her, requiring cosmetic surgery, pushing the complainant down the stairs causing a lower body injury, instances of strangulation, slapping, punching and biting. The matter proceeded to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Wills over a period of 7-days.
The trial did not finish in the alloted time. In the midst of trial, Mr. Lust filed a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings. Justice Wills granted the Defence's section 11(b) application finding that although the charges were very serious, Mr. Lust had established that A.J.'s Charter right under section 11(b) was violated, and dropped all charges against A.J.
C.A was charged with a series of serious domestic assaults against his former girlfriend, This included allegations that C.A had intentionally broke the complainant's wrist during a fight, slapped the complainant thereby disclocating her jaw requiring suregery, and slamming the complainant on the ground and strangling her. The matter proceeded to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Wills over a period of 5-days.
Justice Wills acquitted C.A. of all charges, finding that the complainant's evidence could not be accepted because of a lack of reliability and credability. Mr. Lust was able to show through his cross-examination that the complainant had a motive to fabricate the allegations. Wills J. noted that when Mr. Lust cross-examined E.B., it was apparent that E.B.'s memory was unreliable and inconsistent. Wills J. concluded that despite the photographic and medical evidence corroborating the complainant's version of events, evidence of the motive 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. The matter proceeded to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Bourgeois over a period of a 4-days. During Mr. Lust's cross-examination, the complainant refused to answer questions and acknowledge inconsistencies in her evidence. In the middle of Mr. Lust's cross-examination, the complainant disclosed new text messages between herself and A.V., 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, arguing that the late disclosure of text messages delayed the trial beyond what was reasonable. Bourgeois J. agreed, granted the application, 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 matter proceeded to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Alder over a period of 3-days. 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")
R. v. M.O., 2025 ONSC
Following a traffic stop, M.O. was charged with possessing a Schedule I Substance for the purpose of trafficking, impaired driving, and and having over .80mg of alcohol in his blood at the time of driving. The matter proceeded to trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice before Justice London-Weinstein over a period of 5-days.
At the outset of trial, Mr. Lust filed a lengthy Charter application seeking the exclusion of evidence, alleging that Ottawa Police Officers (arresting officers) violated 15 different of M.O.'s Charter rights, including an assertion that Ottawa Police conducted the traffic stop based on racial profiling.
At the end of trial, Justice London-Weinstein agreed, and excluded the evidence against M.O., finding that Ottawa Police engaged in racial profiling as the basis to conduct the traffic stop of M.O., and repeatedley breached his Charter rights during the traffic stop.
P.D.B. was charged with several offences arising from a motor vehicle accident. He was charged with dangerous driving, impaired driving, and having over .80mg of alcohol in his blood at the time of driving. The matter proceeded to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Shamai over a period of 7-days. 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 at fault. and Justice Shamai acquitted him of dangerous driving. Furthermore, Justice Shamai accepted P.D.B.'s evidence of his alcohol consumption and accepted the Defence's forensic toxicologist expert's 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. K.V., 2026 ONSC
Following tips from several confidential informants, Kingston Drugs and Street Crime Unit commenced an investigation into a drug trafficking ring in the Downtown Kingston area, culiminating in a search warrant for K.V.'s residence, where police sezied over 2 kilos over Schedule I substances. The matter proceeded to trial in the Superor Court of Justice before Justice Muszynski.
At the outset of trial, Mr. Lust filed a lengthy Charter application seeking a declaration that the search warrant for K.V.'s residence was invalid based on sub-facial issues in the ITO, and therefore all drugs seized during the search warrant execution should be excluded. Mr. Lust argued that the affiant did not provide full, frank and fair disclosure and therefore the warrant could not have issued.
Justice Muszynski agreed with Mr. Lust and granted the application, excluding all drugs from evidence, finding that the police misled the warrant issuing Justice about the strength of police evidence. The Federal Crown subsequently dismissed all charges against K.V.
R. v. M.O., 2025 ONSC
Following a traffic stop, M.O. was charged with possessing a Schedule I Substance for the purpose of trafficking, impaired driving, and and having over .80mg of alcohol in his blood at the time of driving. The matter proceeded to trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice before Justice London-Weinstein over a period of 5-days.
At the outset of trial, Mr. Lust filed a lengthy Charter application seeking the exclusion of evidence, alleging that Ottawa Police Officers (arresting officers) violated 15 different of M.O.'s Charter rights, including an assertion that Ottawa Police conducted the traffic stop based on racial profiling.
At the end of trial, Justice London-Weinstein agreed, and excluded the evidence against M.O., finding that Ottawa Police engaged in racial profiling as the basis to conduct the traffic stop of M.O., and repeatedley breached his Charter rights during the traffic stop.
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, following an investigation into a drug operation in the Ottawa area. The matter proceeded to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Perkins-McVey. Mr. Lust filed a Charter application 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, finding 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 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 before Justice Brown. 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.
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 at the outset of trial.