Article content continued

Investigators brought in a dog and a police motorboat on Sunday as they shifted their search for a five-year-old Calgary boy and his grandparents to a field and a slough north of an acreage.

The area police were focusing on Sunday is about a kilometre north of the acreage near this Calgary bedroom community that police combed on Saturday.

Yellow police tape blocked off an adjacent road and a half dozen officers and a dog walked through a field to the edge of a large slough. Moments later a Calgary police boat was towed into continue the search while a police helicopter searched overhead.

Continue reading …

[/np_storybar]

At Douglas Garland’s trial, court heard he was a genius who studied science at the University of Alberta and studied to be a doctor. He left the program before earning a degree.

He served a 39-month federal prison sentence for drug trafficking.

Douglas Garland’s time on the lam was the subject of a bizarre epilogue years later, when he fought the federal government in court over employment insurance benefits.

Douglas Garland had collected employment insurance benefits after getting fired from Can Test Ltd., a Vancouver laboratory firm where he worked between 1992 and 1997. The government later ruled that his earnings weren’t insurable because he worked under a false identity.

Douglas Garland appealed that decision to the Tax Court of Canada — and won, following a trial where he represented himself.

A written decision by Justice Campbell J. Miller in 2005 said Douglas Garland was a “troubled man,” who had attention deficit disorder and whose exit from university was precipitated by a mental breakdown.

“It was clear he was agitated throughout the trial, but it was also apparent that he was an intelligent individual,” Miller wrote.

The court heard Garland rose to become a supervisor of more than 30 people at Can Test but was unable to cope and suffered another breakdown. He was fired in 1997.

Although Garland concealed his identity, the judge ruled he performed legitimate work and the deceit shouldn’t negate his ability to collect benefits.