Judge concerned over time it’s taking to hear Meng Wanzhou’s extradition case

Click to play video: 'Meng Wanzhou ruling and the potential political fallout'
Meng Wanzhou ruling and the potential political fallout
UBC Political Science Professor Yves Tiberghien explains the potential political fallout from the BC Supreme Court ruling against Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou – May 28, 2020

VANCOUVER – The B.C. Supreme Court judge in Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou‘s extradition case says she’s concerned by the length of the proceedings.

During a case management conference on Monday, Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes said two proposed schedules from both Crown prosecutors and Meng’s counsel would see the case wrap up next spring.

Click to play video: 'B.C. judge rules against Meng Wanzhou in extradition hearing'
B.C. judge rules against Meng Wanzhou in extradition hearing

Defence lawyer Richard Peck said they’ve put together a “blistering work schedule,” but Holmes said the court could move faster.

Story continues below advertisement

The United States is seeking to extradite Meng, Huawei’s chief financial officer, on fraud charges based on allegations she lied to HSBC about the company’s relationship with a subsidiary in Iran, putting the bank at risk of violating American sanctions against that country.

Holmes ruled last month that Meng’s alleged offences would constitute a crime in Canada and the case should proceed to the next round of legal arguments, including whether Meng’s arrest at the Vancouver airport in 2018 was unlawful.

Meng and Huawei deny the fraud charges.

Her lawyers allege that Meng’s charter rights were violated when she was detained by border officials who took her electronic devices and passwords, which were shared with the RCMP before Meng was notified that she was under arrest.

Breaking news from Canada and around the world sent to your email, as it happens.

That’s one of three separate arguments on abuse of process that Meng’s counsel is making.

The case was adjourned Monday until June 23 to give the Crown and defence time to discuss the scheduling of those arguments.


Sponsored content