Robert White, a lawyer representing Syncrude, says the deaths of 1,600 ducks was a mistake but not a crime. (CBC)The lawyer representing oilsands giant Syncrude on charges resulting from the deaths of hundreds of waterfowl in the company's tailings ponds in 2008 is pleading with people to keep an open mind.

The Crown began presenting its case Monday in provincial court in St. Albert, Alta. Company lawyers must wait until the prosecution is finished outlining its case — which could take weeks — before making an opening statement.

The company is charged under both provincial and federal legislation with being negligent and failing in its duty to protect migratory birds.

Outside the courtroom, Robert White said his client has admitted that the ducks were killed in ponds that are Syncrude's responsibility, and that noise-making air cannons were not in place at the time, but said no crime was committed.

"Yeah, a mistake was made, but a crime, no, no. Mistake — learn from mistakes. Crimes — punish crimes, but don't punish mistakes."

Syncrude has said the birds were migrating earlier than usual that April, and that bad weather prevented the installation of bird deterrents.

'What in the world do you do?'

"The cannons, we've learned from the Crown experts, the ducks stop being afraid of them in two hours," he said. "So it's a puzzle, now what in the world do you do?"

White also said being charged by both the federal and provincial governments over the same incident was inappropriate.

"You shouldn't have to defend youself against two offences at once," he said, arguing as well that the federal Migratory Bird Convention Act should not be applied in an incident involving natural resources in Alberta.

"This is the toe of the federal government coming into the regulation of Alberta natural resources," he said.

White's arguments did not impress Lindsay Telfer, Prairie director for the Sierra Club.

"My first impression is that they're grasping at straws," said Telfer. "Laws were broken, there are two different laws that were broken."

"There are going to continue to be questions on the part of the public with regards to what their defence is. Why are they pleading not guilty on these charges, when clearly something atrocious happened?"

The court is expected to hear testimony from scientists, as well as people who investigated the incident, over the next few weeks. The trial could take from six to nine weeks..