Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

UPDATED: Meng's expired PR status required entry exam, court hears

The extradition hearing of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou continued on Thursday, with Crown counsel attempting to refute several points made by defence lawyer Scott Fenton the day before.
mengwanzhou2-oct1-albertvansantvoort
Huawei Technologies CFO Meng Wanzhou. Albert Van Santvoort, BIV

The extradition hearing of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou continued on Thursday, with Crown counsel attempting to refute several points made by defence lawyer Scott Fenton the day before.

Fenton on Wednesday posed several questions at RCMP Sergeant Janice Vander Graaf – the supervising officer of the two constables who served Meng’s warrant on Dec. 1, 2018 – including one about the testimony by one officer, Const. Gurvinder Dhaliwal, that he did not read the provisional arrest warrant before the arrest.

Fenton’s contetnion was that – without the officer reading it – he may not have been aware of the issuing judge’s order for Meng’s immediate arrest, thereby violating the warrant conditions. However, under the redirection questioning of Crown attorney John Gibb-Carsley Thursday, it was ultimately the other officer in the case – Const. Winston Yep – who technically served the warrant and arrested Meng.

Yep testified earlier that he did read the order and understood “immediate arrest” to be after Meng has been released by Canada Border Services Agency officers on whether she was admissible into Canada.

“Mr. Fenton suggested that officer Dhaliwal not reading the provisional arrest warrant before executing the arrest is shocking,” Gibb-Carsley asked. “What is the task?”

“A task is an action given to a police officer to conduct that particular action,” Vander Graaf explained.

“Who executed the arrest warrant?” Gibb-Carsley followed.

“Const. Yep and... Const. Yep,” Vander Graaf said.

“In your opinion, who was tasked with executing the provisional arrest warrant?” the Crown attorney asked.

“Cont. Yep,” she replied.

Vander Graaf also said under questioning that she did not know the CBSA requirements in processing a foreign national coming into Canada, refuting the claim by defence that there was “no impediment” to the CBSA’s border examination process had the RCMP arrested Meng first on the plane or the jetway.

Later on Thursday, the eighth witness on the case – RCMP Sergeant Ross Lundie, who is with the police’s integrated unit on national security matters, told the court that arresting Meng on the plane was never a realistic option.

Lundie, who said Yep and Dhaliwal suggested going onto the plane to serve the arrest warrant, immediately shot the idea down.

“I had concerns with that right off the bat,” Lundie said. “I didn’t want to support that, so basically I told them at the time that they wouldn’t be able to get to the plane without our assistance... and that we don’t go onto the plane like this to arrest people unless there is an immediate public safety risk.

“This is a custom-controlled area. This is an international flight; individuals are arriving. We cannot exclude the CBSA in this conversation.”

Lundie also told the court he was aware that Meng was a foreign national by 2018 after her permanent-resident status expired. He said he was told of that fact by the CBSA, which means the border-crossing examination process (under which Meng was ultimately held and questioned for three hours) was necessary.

Lundie also said he did not issue any order or suggestion for the CBSA not to remove Meng's electronic devices - placed in a signal-blocking Faraday bag after being taken as Meng got off the plane on Dec. 1, 2018 - if the CBSA wanted to take it out. Fenton argued earlier that such an order existed - meaning there was intent on behalf of the RCMP to maintain the evidence contained on the devices for use by U.S. authorities in the Meng fraud case.

"I didn't hear [any orders], but they may have," Lundie did not when asked if other RCMP officers made that request of the CBSA.

The majority of the afternoon testimony centred around Lundie's recollection of the two days - the day of arrest and the day leading up to the event. The hearings will continue for the rest of the week.