Canada arrests Huawei’s global chief financial officer in Vancouver

Ms.Meng as anybody has right to defend her interests and to have a whole team of lawyers.
But 18 months are enough to open a trial and to make a decision. Apparently for political reasons Canadian justice is deliberately slow.
... and in that time there have been hearings.
What would be these political reasons for justice to be slow as opposed to the 'right' political outcome?
 
... and in that time there have been hearings.
What would be these political reasons for justice to be slow as opposed to the 'right' political outcome?
Hearing? There will be no any hearings soon. The next week a judge will make a decision about double criminality without any hearings and processual competition between Canadian state lawyers and Meng's lawyers team.
 
I would like to translate it from political English to understandable English.

Here mr.Trudeau uses 1984 dialect. In fact he said that Canadian judicial system in some important cases is not independent at all and is influenced by politicians including him, as he makes a statement related to 'purely' criminal case 'voided' any political component.

Mr.Trudeau really means that China understands the situation pretty well and acts in a similar way.

Mr.Trudeau in fact said that China did something that was expected and Canadian government don't care about Canadian citizens. So they could spend in detention many months and even years.
Mr. Trudeau is emphasising the "judicial independence" line for two reasons. One is that it is the only way for his government to try to navigate between the Scylla and Charybdis of the US and China power struggle.

The other reason is that during the 2019 federal election his government lost their majority over a scandal involving cabinet interference on behalf of of a major Canadian engineering company in their prosecution over alleged bribery in Libya.

The Chinese have publicly noted the contrast between the two situations and question the sincerity of the "judicial independence" excuse being given.
 
Last edited:
It is a realistic point of view. Maybe you believe that Assange's case is purely criminal and voided of any political component? Really?
Meng's case is purely political one. Now Canadian authorities merely play time. In theory any person has right for fair trial. But ms.Meng is in detention for almost 1.5 year and unlikely trial (fair or unfair) will happen anytime soon.
Hearings have already taken place on a number of issues relating to extradition. The results of the double criminality aspect will be announced next week.

Much of the delay has been the result of Meng's legal team requesting documents relating to the abuse of process question, and the crown's attempts to resist and delay handing over any evidence which does not fit their version of events.
 
Hearing? There will be no any hearings soon. The next week a judge will make a decision about double criminality without any hearings and processual competition between Canadian state lawyers and Meng's lawyers team.
... and why do you think the decision needs to be made?
 
... and why do you think the decision needs to be made?
Because the Yanks may not be trying to have her extradited on grounds which are criminal offences in Canada.

Hence the attempts to stretch the definition of fraud.
 
Hearings have already taken place on a number of issues relating to extradition. The results of the double criminality aspect will be announced next week.

Much of the delay has been the result of Meng's legal team requesting documents relating to the abuse of process question, and the crown's attempts to resist and delay handing over any evidence which does not fit their version of events.
Do you mean that Canadian law enforcement structures are not impartial in this case, that they have their own version of events and do their best to hide anything that doesn't fit to predefined verdict? In this case hardly any trial would be free and fair.
One and half year is a long enough period to make a decision (at least initial) in such a case.
 
Do you mean that Canadian law enforcement structures are not impartial in this case, that they have their own version of events and do their best to hide anything that doesn't fit to predefined verdict? In this case hardly any trial would be free and fair.
One and half year is a long enough period to make a decision (at least initial) in such a case.
As it stands now, it appears that Canadian security forces used Meng's detention in immigration to bypass normal legal protections and force her to divulge confidential information unrelated to immigration purposes, including forcing her to reveal passwords to on-line accounts. This information was then passed on to waiting American security and intelligence agencies who then used the information to extract information about Meng and Huawei. Canadian officials had received detailed instructions from the Americans on what exactly was wanted and how to go about getting it.

The version put out by Canadian security and immigration departments is that this all happened unintentionally by chance through a series of coincidences and as there was no bad intent on their part there's no reason for the court to take notice of it. They none the less resisted tooth and nail to producing any documents and testimony related to this matter, and this has to no small degree played a part in the proceedings being so drawn out.
 
As it stands now, it appears that Canadian security forces used Meng's detention in immigration to bypass normal legal protections and force her to divulge confidential information unrelated to immigration purposes, including forcing her to reveal passwords to on-line accounts. This information was then passed on to waiting American security and intelligence agencies who then used the information to extract information about Meng and Huawei. Canadian officials had received detailed instructions from the Americans on what exactly was wanted and how to go about getting it.

The version put out by Canadian security and immigration departments is that this all happened unintentionally by chance through a series of coincidences and as there was no bad intent on their part there's no reason for the court to take notice of it. They none the less resisted tooth and nail to producing any documents and testimony related to this matter,...
I see.
... and this has to no small degree played a part in the proceedings being so drawn out.
So why Canadian justice is so slow? For what reasons? For political ones?
 
I see.

So why Canadian justice is so slow? For what reasons? For political ones?
See the explanation in my previous posts. If certain officials in Vancouver were involved in abuse of process, they will wish to avoid their behaviour being brought to light and so will resist producing evidence.

I would suggest waiting to see what happens next week when we will have some actual news to discuss. At present we are simply re-hashing subjects covered already in this thread.
 
The BC judge has ruled against Meng and said that extradition proceedings should proceed.
Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou loses key court battle as B.C. judge rules extradition bid should proceed. This is just the current stage in extradition hearings and there are more steps involved during which the proceedings could be thrown out.
A B.C. Supreme Court judge has delivered a major blow to Meng Wanzhou, ruling that extradition proceedings against the Huawei executive should proceed.
The issue at stake in this case was about "double criminality", in which the alleged offence in question must be a crime in Canada as well as the US in order for extradition to proceed. The issue decided here was the narrow one about whether the American case was about sanctions violation or about fraud. In this case the judge has ruled that because the American extradition request was phrased in terms of fraud, although through quite a convoluted chain of argument, it meets the double criminality standard.

However, this isn't the end, or even the beginning of the end. The next stage will be the crown has to show that there is enough evidence to warrant extradition, and there is also an abuse of process claim as well. After that the extradition must also be approved by the minister of justice.

The ruling does not necessarily mean that Meng will be extradited to the U.S.

The judge still has to hold hearings to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant extradition, and Meng has also claimed that her rights were violated at the time of her arrest.

Holmes pointed out that Canada's minister of justice will also have a chance to weigh in on whether a decision to commit Meng for extradition would be contrary to Canadian values.
 
It seems the judge has set a legal precedent that the Canadian authorities should take the word of foreign ones about their motives provided the paperwork is phrased correctly.

I can't wait to see how Beijing exploits that.
 
It seems the judge has set a legal precedent that the Canadian authorities should take the word of foreign ones about their motives provided the paperwork is phrased correctly.

I can't wait to see how Beijing exploits that.
I've had similar thoughts. I look forward to China following American precedent and framing a politically connected extradition request in terms of some connection to an ordinary crime and seeing how enthusiasticly it is received then.

This particular ruling doesn't come as a huge surprise to me, as it was somewhat foreshadowed by the judge a while ago when she asked the crown prosecutor whether he would prosecute this case if it came under his jurisdiction, and he answered yes. I might perhaps be excused for feeling a bit sceptical about that, but given that his job is to "win" I would be even more surprised if he had said no.

On the other hand, this ruling seems to have come as a surprise to Meng's side, as they were taking commemorative photos on the steps of the courthouse the day before the ruling came down. I did wonder if they had some inside information on the ruling, but it seems not.

There are a number of other steps to go through after this, including abuse of process and whether there is sufficient evidence against Meng to justify extradition.

And if the case makes its way through that "completely independent judicial process" it comes before the minister of justice, who can toss out the request arbitrarily. I suspect that cabinet are desperately praying that it never makes it that far.
 
It seems the judge has set a legal precedent that the Canadian authorities should take the word of foreign ones about their motives provided the paperwork is phrased correctly.

I can't wait to see how Beijing exploits that.
I should add that if the case against Meng gets tossed out I won't be surprised if the US immediately files a new extradition request against her one some other nominally different grounds so they can start the process over again.

There were reports a few months ago that the US had prepared other charges they wanted to press against Meng, but there was no news on those being added to the current request. They may be holding them in reserve in an attempt to hold Meng in Vancouver indefinitely.
 
They may be holding them in reserve in an attempt to hold Meng in Vancouver indefinitely.
Is there no facility in Canadian law to prevent abusive process or is it possible for someone unconvicted to be held indefinitely on a foreign government's say so?
 
Is there no facility in Canadian law to prevent abusive process or is it possible for someone unconvicted to be held indefinitely on a foreign government's say so?
There is, but I believe that requires cabinet to step in to make that decision. Ottawa are currently trying to stay as far away from this case as possible for two reasons.

The first is the current government nearly lost the election last autumn over a scandal involving cabinet interference with another unrelated court case. The endless mantra of "Canada has an independent judicial process" is heavily related to this incident. Ottawa stepping into this case would be manna from heaven for an opposition that has been starved of attention bandwidth by the COVID-19 crisis and the Conservatives being led by a "zombie" (this is how Conservatives describe him) interim leader while their leadership race has been on hold during the pandemic.

The second reason is that Americans would go ballistic and may slap numerous trade sanctions on Canada if cablinet were to toss out the extradition. Of course they may do this anyway if the current case goes against them. Regardless of how independent the courts may be in Canada the Americans will still hold the government in Ottawa responsible if the result doesn't come out the way they want.

Hence, I suspect that Ottawa are probably hoping that the issue will just go away somehow. The best solution from the Canadian perspective would be for the Americans and the Chinese to patch up their differences and drop the extradition attempt against her.

Failing that, the abuse of process proceeding going against the crown would be convenient for Ottawa, as it could then be blamed on low level officials who were trying too hard to please the Americans.
 
There is, but I believe that requires cabinet to step in to make that decision. Ottawa are currently trying to stay as far away from this case as possible for two reasons.

The first is the current government nearly lost the election last autumn over a scandal involving cabinet interference with another unrelated court case. The endless mantra of "Canada has an independent judicial process" is heavily related to this incident. Ottawa stepping into this case would be manna from heaven for an opposition that has been starved of attention bandwidth by the COVID-19 crisis and the Conservatives being led by a "zombie" (this is how Conservatives describe him) interim leader while their leadership race has been on hold during the pandemic.

The second reason is that Americans would go ballistic and may slap numerous trade sanctions on Canada if cablinet were to toss out the extradition. Of course they may do this anyway if the current case goes against them. Regardless of how independent the courts may be in Canada the Americans will still hold the government in Ottawa responsible if the result doesn't come out the way they want.

Hence, I suspect that Ottawa are probably hoping that the issue will just go away somehow. The best solution from the Canadian perspective would be for the Americans and the Chinese to patch up their differences and drop the extradition attempt against her.

Failing that, the abuse of process proceeding going against the crown would be convenient for Ottawa, as it could then be blamed on low level officials who were trying too hard to please the Americans.
In other words the criminal aspect of the case is almost invisible in comparison with its political component. Meng is a political prisoner - a victim of political games. Law, justice are justs abstract terms in the context of her case.
 
In other words the criminal aspect of the case is almost invisible in comparison with its political component. Meng is a political prisoner - a victim of political games. Law, justice are justs abstract terms in the context of her case.
No
They are going through the process of establishing whether the extradition stands up in Canadian law.
The criminal element of the case would take place in a US court - unless Mengs legal team are successful in preventing the extradition
 

Latest Threads

Top