It depends on the nature of the "glitch". You say that the issue was with the nature of the client's business. Was this issue something that should have been obvious to you had you done a bit of research on the company before showing up? Or was it something that you realistically might not have understood prior to the interview?
If I'm interviewer for, say, the Royal Bank of Canada, a candidate shows up and ends the meeting 5 minutes in when they find out that the company lends money at interest, I'm going to be upset. I'm perfectly happy if people have moral issues with banks. I'm perfectly happy if a candidate finds out in the course of an interview that the position isn't for them. But I'm going to be pretty upset if I've gone to the trouble to clear my calendar for an interview, review a resume, etc. only to have it end over something that should have been obvious from a basic Google search. Think of how upset you'd be as a candidate if you went to an interview that ended 5 minutes in because of something that was obvious from your resume.
If, on the other hand, the candidate realistically learns something in the course of the interview that they couldn't have known earlier, I'm perfectly happy for them to end the interview early. If I'm interviewing for a law firm that has a bunch of different practice areas and I happen to be looking for an administrative person to work in the criminal defense practice, that may not be obvious from the job description. If someone has been a crime victim and isn't comfortable working for the defense, that's a perfectly reasonable objection. I'd be happy for someone to excuse themselves once they find out that they'd be working in an environment they're not comfortable with.
In either case, I'd rather the candidate end the interview when they know they're no longer interested in the job. No sense in wasting more time. But if the candidate and the recruiter aren't doing a basic level of due diligence, I'm going to be upset with them. If that happened, I'd certainly expect that there would be a conversation with the recruiter about doing some basic vetting of candidates before sending them for an interview. That's what it sounds like happened here.