E.N. was charged with serious offences including possession of prohibited weapons for a dangerous prupose, and possession of Schedule I substances for the purpose of trafficking. The matter proceeded to trial 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 of all charges. 

-

R. v. A.C., [2022] O.J. No. 2626

A.C. was charged with serious offences that included 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 of all charges. 

-

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. 

R. v. B.D., 2023 ONCJ 123

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, grueling cross-examination, and legal arguments, Mr. Lust was able to convince Lipson J. of the Ontario Court of Justice, that the statement was inadmissible based on a lack of reliability. 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. 

 

UNREPORTED DECISIONS

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, theft over $5,000. The case included forensic DNA and fingerprint evidence. The matter proceeded to a 3 week trial 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. Ali et al, 2020 ONCJ

J.B., and other were charged with trafficing Schedule I substances, possessing Schedule I substances for the prupose of trafficking, and fleeing police. The matter proceeded to a 2-week trial 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 weapons and refusing to comple 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 that turned up 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 a 3 day 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 rpivacy was breached when the officer questioned him in the emergency room. THe production order was excluded and C.H. was acquitted. 

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 length 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 intario Court of Justice in L'Orignal. Mr. Lust cross-examined for several days during the 3 days preliminary inquiry. 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.