Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou leaves her home to attend a court hearing in Vancouver, on Dec. 7, 2020.

JENNIFER GAUTHIER/Reuters

Lawyers for Meng Wanzhou asked a B.C. Supreme Court judge Monday to delay the final leg of hearings in the Huawei executive’s extradition case one week before it is set to begin.

Richard Peck said the legal team needs time to review new evidence obtained through a court order in Hong Kong that could support its argument that the United States misled Canadian officials in describing the allegations against Meng.

“What we request is a reasonable time in which to assess the documents and determine their likely admissibility,” he said.

Story continues below advertisement

In response, a lawyer for Canada’s attorney general argued there’s no basis to believe the documents will be relevant and accused Meng’s team of trying to turn the extradition hearing into a trial.

After 2 1/2 years of legal proceedings, “and mere days from reaching the finish line, the applicant asks this court to take a several month pause. Her request should be denied,” the Crown said in a written response.

Meng was arrested at Vancouver’s airport in 2018 at the request of the U.S. to face fraud charges that both she and Huawei deny.

She is accused of lying to HSBC about Huawei’s control of subsidiary Skycom during a presentation in 2013, putting the bank at risk of violating U.S. sanctions against Iran.

The court has heard that Huawei sold Skycom to Canicula Holdings, another company that Huawei controlled financially, in 2007.

While Meng’s Canadian lawyers have not yet seen most of the documents from HSBC and their contents are unclear, Peck said it’s believed they will shed light on what the bank knew about the relationship between the companies and how much it relied on Meng’s 2013 presentation.

“We say these materials are relevant because they are referenced from the very bank at the very time including the very parties involved in this matter,” Peck said.

Story continues below advertisement

Meng’s team also said in court documents that Canada’s attorney general should launch an investigation into whether Meng was arrested based on inaccurate information.

Peck proposed that the final three weeks of the hearing, set to begin April 26, be adjourned until Aug. 3 to allow time for such a probe, as well as for COVID-19 cases to subside.

But Robert Frater, a lawyer for Canada’s attorney general, said there’s no evidence to believe the new documents are relevant to the extradition case.

Meng’s team relies entirely on two letters from Huawei’s U.S. lawyers in which allegations are made, but support for the allegations is redacted and those lawyers are “aligned” with Meng, he said.

He added that the U.S. has “vigorously” denied the allegations, so Meng’s team is essentially asking the B.C. Supreme Court to weigh one side against the other, a job better suited for the U.S. trial.

Frater also accused Meng’s team of “jurisdiction shopping” for a court that would approve the document disclosure.

Story continues below advertisement

Meng’s lawyers previously failed in an effort to access the same documents through a court in the United Kingdom.

“Having received the answer ‘no’ from the U.K. court, then my friends went to Hong Kong and inexplicably, HSBC, which was the same litigant that appeared in the court in the U.K., completely reversed its position after having won on every single point in the U.K. court,” Frater said.

“HSBC for reasons known only to itself turned around and decided to agree to an order.”

Frater called the adjournment application an “11th hour” request, adding the Hong Kong court provided no timeline for when the documents might be shared with Meng’s team.

There’s no credible basis for an independent investigation and Canada has no duty to investigate the evidence underlying extradition requests made by its treaty partners, he said.

The broad public interest in Meng’s extradition case only adds to the urgency of wrapping it up, he said.

Story continues below advertisement

“Extraditions hearings are supposed to be expeditious,” Frater said.

Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes reserved her decision until Wednesday.

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