Canada's attorney general is responding to accusations made by Meng Wanzhou's defence team that Canadian and U.S. authorities deliberately delayed her arrest, under the guise of an immigration and customs search in Vancouver last December, in order to obtain evidence that could bolster American prosecutors' case against the Huawei CFO.
In their 55-page response, made public for the first time Monday, Crown prosecutors responded on behalf of the attorney general's attempt to pick apart Meng's defence team's arguments about what transpired during her detainment by Canada Border Services Agency and arrest by RCMP officers nearly three hours later, point-by-point.
Crown also called Meng's lawyers' application for further disclosure of all emails, handwritten notes, and other communications about her case within and among Canadian and American law enforcement agencies, a "fishing expedition."
"The additional disclosure she seeks is either not relevant to a material fact or privileged," prosecutors wrote, in the document filed September 17. "This application can only be characterized as a 'fishing expedition' for materials she hopes will reveal the speculative conspiracy she alleges."
Attorney general: No evidence CBSA or RCMP acted 'improperly'
In August, CTV News reported how Meng's lawyers planned to argue that her Charter rights were violated when she landed at YVR last December, in part because she was questioned and searched by CBSA officers for nearly three hours, before being handed over to Mounties where she was promptly arrested on an extradition warrant.
Records released by the court in August, which included handwritten notes from RCMP members, paint a picture, her lawyers argue of a "plan to unlawfully detain, search, and interrogate" the executive.
For example, defence argued records released by the court show Mounties initially planned to arrest Meng on the plane when her Cathay Pacific flight landed from Hong Kong, but by the next day, the plan had changed, and CBSA agents would detain her first.
On Monday, the attorney general disputed the idea of a change in plans, writing that the RCMP had never consulted with the CBSA on their first "plan," and the only plan that existed was the one made the next morning that "the CBSA would process the applicant for immigration and custom purposes before she was arrested."
Records released by the court in August also included a sworn statement from the acting superintendent of the CBSA the date of Meng's arrest at YVR and revealed he asked Meng questions both about Huawei, and the company's dealings with Iran.
Those questions came before Meng was made aware a warrant for her arrest existed, and before she was advised of her Charter rights.
In documents released Monday, the attorney general said Meng had not "provided any evidence to suggest that the CBSA questions were inappropriate," and went on to write the questioning was "consistent with the responsibilities of the CBSA" because allegations of criminal conduct could impact whether a foreign national like Meng would be admissible to Canada.
There are over a dozen more examples the attorney general addresses directly, to support his argument that neither the CBSA or RCMP "acted improperly, much less abusively."
"There is no evidence that lends an air of reality to [Meng's] allegations," Crown prosecutors wrote, arguing against her lawyers' application for further disclosure, while simultaneously releasing upwards of 1200 new pages of communications from the relevant agencies.
Meng's defence team: New questions, few answers
In a response that was also made public on Monday, Meng's defence team rebutted the attorney general's arguments.
Some of their reasoning includes: (1) that "it was a foregone conclusion that [Meng] would be entering Canada; (2) that CBSA officers are "peace officers" and could have made the arrest; (3) that CBSA officers "seized and preserved evidence for the RCMP."
Meng's lawyers also argue newly disclosed emails, text messages and notes from those involved in Meng's arrest, raise new questions that "suggest there is an even stronger foundation for [their] argument."
It will be up to Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes to determine over the next two weeks whether their arguments for further disclosure meet the "air of reality" test, widely understood as a way to prevent outlandish or farfetched defences from being used in court.
Meng's extradition hearing is scheduled for January 2020.
