Skip to main content
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou returns to B.C. Supreme Court after a break in her extradition hearing, in Vancouver, on March 29, 2021.

DARRYL DYCK/The Canadian Press

A lawyer for Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou says the case before a British Columbia Supreme Court judge is “unprecedented” in that the extradition request from the United States violates international law.

Gib van Ert told Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes on Tuesday that Canadian courts have stayed extradition proceedings because of international law breaches in the past, but in those cases the conduct around the request was unlawful.

The case against Meng is unique because the request itself is unlawful, as American authorities are seeking the Chinese national on fraud charges that have no connection to the United States, he said.

Story continues below advertisement

“We cannot find any such case. We don’t believe that any requesting state has ever made such a request to this country,” van Ert told the judge. “You find yourself in an unusual and even unprecedented situation.”

Meng has denied allegations that she lied to HSBC in 2013 about Huawei’s relationship with a subsidiary doing business in Iran, putting the bank at risk of violating American sanctions.

Her lawyer argued the allegations have nothing to do with the United States. Meng is a Chinese national, HSBC is an English-Chinese bank and the meeting between them happened in Hong Kong.

Meng would expect the laws of Hong Kong to apply to her in Hong Kong, van Ert said.

Payments between the subsidiary and HSBC were made in American dollars and cleared through U.S. banks, but van Ert said this connection is “incidental” and not genuine or substantial.

He said more than US$4.5-trillion is cleared through the American financial system every day and the transactions in question were just over $2-million over a 13-month period.

The heart of international law is that all states are equal and have sovereign legal authority, he said, and countries cannot extend their criminal law into other nations without a significant connection.

Story continues below advertisement

For example, if Meng was American, the U.S. request to extradite her would be appropriate, he said.

There are also some exceptions, such as when a crime in a foreign country poses a threat to another’s national security or when it is a war crime or genocide, but none apply in this case, he added.

Meng was arrested while passing through Vancouver’s airport in December 2018 and her lawyers are arguing that the extradition case should be tossed because of an abuse of process.

The alleged breach of international law is the last of four branches of arguments the lawyers are making at the hearing. The breach is both an abuse of the Canadian courts and unprecedented, van Ert said.

“How do you respond to that? That’s what makes this case so difficult – so difficult in some ways, and so easy in others, I say,” he told the judge.

Holmes questioned whether it could be known if the case is truly unprecedented, as the federal government is responsible for issuing an authority to proceed on extradition requests before the cases reach a court hearing.

Story continues below advertisement

The Justice Department issued an authority to proceed for the Meng case in March 2019.

The lawyer acknowledged that it isn’t known whether “outrageous” extradition requests have been made in the past and rejected by the government.

However, van Ert said the fact that the government issued the authority to proceed doesn’t mean the request is lawful. It’s the court’s job to decide on that issue, he said.

He also assured Holmes that the B.C. court has the authority to act upon international law breaches even though they are not part of the court’s usual day-to-day business.

The Constitution does not have provisions that address international law, unlike other countries such as Germany, and instead it is the common law that deals with these principles, he said.

The court is a branch of the Canadian state for the purposes of international law, van Ert said.

Story continues below advertisement

“If this court renders a decision that condones the U.S. request, confirms the U.S. request, that is a decision by Canada condoning and confirming the request,” he said.

“And we say that would be to put Canada in breach of its own obligations as well as condoning the U.S. breach.”

The case has severely strained Canada-China relations. Beijing detained two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, shortly after Meng’s arrest and their one-day trials were recently held behind closed doors, though no verdicts were released.

Meng is on bail and living with her husband and children in one of her multimillion-dollar homes in Vancouver. The final phase of the B.C. Supreme Court process, an extradition hearing, is scheduled for May.

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies