Boots is walking.

Steve 'Boots' Powless, his twin 19 year-old sons and supporter Alex Hundert were given conditional discharges in provincial court on Queen Street today for charges of mischief and breach of a court order related to a land claim protest Labour Day weekend 2008.

"There's no suggestion that these individuals in any way incited violent or aggressive behaviour," said Justice Martha Zivolak as she described the factors considered for decision on sentencing.

All four were given six months conditional discharge- the conditions being to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

Sarah Dover, who defended the four, had asked for a full discharge, while the crown was asking for a conditional discharge with one year probation.

Powless had erected a teepee across the street from the former Kingspan development at Oak Park Road.

Originally, Powless was charged with mischief for blocking access to the nearby Hampton Inn Hotel site.

His sons and Hundert were often at the teepee, leading to all four being charged.

The case has been working its way through the court system, with all four being found guilty and then entering into the "Gladue" system, which requires the court consider aboriginal culture and traditional teachings when deciding a sentence.

Zivolak thanked Dover for summarizing the Creation story to help the court fully understand the culture and belief system of the defendants.

"The defendants are in fact obliged by that cause to act," Zivolak said.

Adding the land claims cause is, "so closely related to the laws they respect and hold true."

Calling the four, "law abiding and respecting," she said controls beyond the sentence she gave are not necessary for the public good or for the good of the defendants and referred to Powless as a strong father figure and someone who leads by example.

In detailing her sentencing, Zivolak also made reference to the ongoing land claims issue as well as a current injunction the city of Brantford obtained to prevent protesting- the injunction which lead to the breach of a court order charges.

As neither issue is resolved and therefore true ownership of the lands Powless protested can be spoken to Zivolak said, "The question of the legality of that possession is not for this court to decide."

"Obviously these are very large issues."