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 CFO Meng Wanzhou leaves her home in Vancouver on March 17, 2021.

JONATHAN HAYWARD/The Canadian Press

Canadian and U.S. officials involved in the arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou failed, “at times miserably,” in their duties to act honourably and with regard for her rights, one of her lawyers argued Wednesday.

Tony Paisana made the remarks at the start of a B.C. Supreme Court hearing where her lawyers claim the misconduct by officials was so egregious that she should be released.

“Both Canadian and American authorities engaged in misconduct that spanned the spectrum from negligence and casual indifference to Ms. Meng’s rights and their own obligations to the court, to deliberate and flagrant disregard of those responsibilities,” Mr. Paisana said.

Story continues below advertisement

Canadian officials had an “overarching preoccupation” with appeasing the United States. At nearly every turn, they prioritized the U.S. requests over Ms. Meng’s rights and their obligations to the court, he claimed.

When confronted, they tried to explain the conduct away as a mistake or gave “less than truthful” answers, some bordering on the “absurd,” Mr. Paisana told the court.

Lawyers for Canada’s attorney general counter in court documents that the allegation of misconduct is supported only by speculation and innuendo, not by evidence.

Ms. Meng is the chief financial officer of Huawei, one of the largest telecom companies in the world, and daughter of its founder, Ren Zhengfei.

Her arrest at Vancouver’s airport in 2018 at the request of the United States fractured Canada’s relations with China.

Court hearings in China have been scheduled Friday and Monday for Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, two Canadians whose detention is widely seen as retaliation for Ms. Meng’s arrest.

She is wanted in the United States on fraud charges related to American sanctions against Iran that both she and Huawei deny.

Story continues below advertisement

Ms. Meng’s legal team is trying to convince the judge overseeing her extradition case to order a stay of proceedings on the basis that she was subjected to an abuse of process. It’s one of four ways they allege she suffered such an abuse.

Mr. Paisana argued Wednesday that officials ignored the court’s order for Ms. Meng’s “immediate” arrest, instead abusing their powers for the improper purpose of a criminal investigation by questioning her at the airport first.

He rejected an argument from Canada’s attorney general that the RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency were in a “legal stalemate” over whether the arrest or immigration exam should happen first.

Mr. Paisana pointed to testimony from CBSA officials who said they believed an exam involving national security concerns, like Ms. Meng’s, would not be completed in a day and would inevitably be adjourned.

Officers also knew such an exam would be pointless until her extradition proceeding is over, suggesting they were gathering evidence for other purposes, he said.

“It is this that offers powerful proof to the officers’ true motives,” he said.

Story continues below advertisement

However, Canada’s attorney general says in court documents that it was “reasonable” for CBSA to decide their customs and immigration process would take priority.

They took no direction from RCMP, who recognized they were working in the unique context of a port of entry. And the RCMP gained no advantage in deferring the arrest, the Crown says.

Pursing another branch of argument, Mr. Paisana pointed to omissions in legal documents provided by the United States about the case as evidence of trickery.

They omitted that the indictment was sealed, misleading Canadian officials to believe she was aware of the charges against her and was more likely to flee, he said.

Mr. Paisana urged the court to assess the defence team’s claims “as a whole,” as he offered an overview of other arguments to come.

Ms. Meng’s lawyers will rely on witness testimony to show that a senior officer ordered officials to stop creating records about the case, which Mr. Paisana described as “the antithesis of transparency and accountability.”

Story continues below advertisement

The misconduct extends to the “unprecedented” refusal to testify by a now-retired senior RCMP officer, who was asked in an e-mail by the FBI to share information about Ms. Meng’s devices, he said.

“Overall, we say the officers at the heart of this case, at times, demonstrated a lack of regard for the charter, for this court’s role in overseeing their conduct and, frankly, the truth,” Mr. Paisana told the court.

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