Trial also set for September on case connected to 2011 fish kill
SUMMERSIDE — The case of a 59-year-old Mount Royal farmer charged with crop rotation violations has again been adjourned, this time to early September.
G. Warren Ellis was scheduled to appear in Summreside provincial court Tuesday to answer to four charges under section 7(2) Agricultural Crop Rotation Act.
The case has been before the Summerside court several times since the charges were laid earlier this year.
The charges, which read the same but each involves separates pieces of land, alleges that Ellis: “did, without management plan or permit, unlawfully plant a regulated crop on area of land greater than 1.0 hectare at any time for more than one calendar year in any three consecutive calendar years.”
The offences allegedly took place between April 1, 2010, and Oct. 25, 2012.
No pleas have been entered on the charges.
Defence attorney Jonathan Coady, in a brief appearance before judge Jeff Lantz Tuesday morning, asked that the case be adjourned again, this time for three weeks.
Coady explained that additional disclosure had only been received Monday and that the defence was awaiting further disclosure in the case.
Ellis did not appear in court with his lawyer.
Crown attorney David O’Brien questioned what disclosure was missing.
“I’m not sure there is more beyond this,” said O’Brien, to which Coady indicated there was information missing.
Lantz agreed to adjourn the matter until Sept. 3, at which time Ellis is scheduled to appear for a two-day trial on charges in connection with a fish kill in 2011.
In April, not guilty pleas were on behalf of Ellis and his company, Warren Ellis Produce Inc., on two charges under section 40(2) of the federal Fisheries Act.
The charges were laid on July 10, 2012, little less than a year after thousands of fish were discovered dead in a section of the Trout River after heavy rainfall.
The charge alleges that Ellis and his company did, sometime between July 21 and July 23, 2011, near Mount Royal: “deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance in waters frequented by fish or in any place under any conditions where the deleterious substance may enter water, to wit, the Trout River Watershed, in violation of section 36.(3) of the Fisheries Act.”