E.N. was charged with serious offences including possession of prohibited weapons for a dangerous prupose, and possession of a Schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking. Trial proceeded over 3 days. Following lengthy cross-examination of the investigating officers by Mr. Lust, Boxall J., of the Ontario Court of Justice determined E.N.'s Charter rights were violated when he was subject to an illegal search and his rights to counsel were violated. All evidence was excluded and E.N. was acquitted.

-

R. v. A.C., [2022] O.J. No. 2626

A.C. was charged with serious offences including domestic aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, assault by choking, assault causing bodily harm, uttering death threats and criminal harassment. The matter proceeded to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice over 5 days. Webber J., of the Ontario Court of Justice determined that the complainant was not a believeable witness given Mr. Lust's cross-examination. Webber J., determined that A.C. acted in self-defence and he was acquitted.

-

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. 

 

UNREPORTED DECISIONS

R. v. D.A., 2024 QCCQ

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. 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. 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. 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. 

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. 

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., 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 charges at the preliminary inquiry. 

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. 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. 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.