Clarion Staff

Former Kindersley MLA Bill Boyd’s lawyer has asked for an adjournment in order to continue discussing the terms of the case against him  with the Crown. Boyd is facing charges of altering land and wildlife habitat.

Boyd, who lives on a farm south of Eston, was scheduled to make a first appearance at provincial court in Kindersley on Oct. 10, but he was not in court on Tuesday. Robart Ard, Boyd’s defence lawyer, appeared on his client’s behalf to ask for an adjournment.

Bill Boyd

The charges against Boyd include three violations under the Environmental Management and Protection Act, and one charge under the Wildlife Habitat Protection Act. The four charges are related to the alleged altering of the shoreline, wildlife habitat and ecological lands along the South Saskatchewan River.

Boyd stands charged with altering wildlife habitat and ecological lands, contrary to a section of the Wildlife Habitat Protection Act. The three remaining charges are covered under the Environmental Management and Protection Act.

The accused stands charged with one count of altering the configuration of, one count of removing, displacing or adding any sand, gravel or other material to, and one count of removing vegetation from the bed, bank or boundary of any river, stream, lake, creek, marsh, or other watercourse or water body.

[emember_protected for=”2″ custom_msg=’For more on this story, please see the Oct. 11 print edition of The Clarion.’]

Ard told the court he has been discussing the terms of the case with the Crown prosecutor’s office and he was asking for an adjournment to Nov. 7 for the matter to return.

Matthew Miazga, the senior Crown prosecutor assigned to the file, said it was only a first appearance, so he would waive reading the charges and discuss an adjournment date when it is anticipated that the defence would be entering its plea.

He added that Ard is going to be away in November and for most of the remainder of 2017, so he would continue to discuss the matters with Boyd’s lawyer with the hopes of arriving at a resolution before the adjournment date.

“We’re hoping we might resolve it,” Miazga told the court, recognizing that he would continue working to resolve the matter and, if both sides are not able to come to an agreement, the Crown or defence would have to request another adjournment in November.

Justice Robert Jackson said he realizes the discussions are ongoing, so he granted the adjournment to allow the lawyers to continue working toward a potential resolution. He added that he would only need both lawyers to attend if any arguments were going to be made before the court.

[/emember_protected]

© Kindersley Clarion