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.
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.
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.
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. 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. V.M., 2021 ONCJ
V.M was chargged 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. 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. C.H., 2022 ONCJ
C.H. was charged with impaired driving following a near fatal car accident. Police investigated C.H. at the hospital while he was incapacitated in the emergency room. Police obtained a production order for his medical records to prove his impairment. The matter proceed to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. After lengthy cross-examination by Mr. Lust, Dumel J. of the Ontario Court of Justice found that C.H. right to privacy was breached when the officer questioned him in the emergency room. The matter is currently being argued at the Ontario Court of Appeal.
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. 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 charged at the preliminary inquiry.