Huawei executive one step closer to extradition and a law firm is obtaining a order to reveal the identity of someone who left a Google review

In Canada, the decision about whether or not to extradite someone to another country to face criminal charges has both a legal and political aspect. 

The courts decide if the legal requirements for extradition have been met. If they have, it is then up to the Minister of Justice to determine if the person should actually be extradited.

The recent decision concerning Wanzhou Meng of Huawei dealt with one of the legal requirements: the offence the person is charged with, in the other country, must also be an offence in Canada. This is referred to as double criminality.

Ms. Meng is charged with fraud in the United States on the basis that she is alleged to have lied about Huawei's control of an Iranian company in order to secure a loan of $1.5 billion that would otherwise have been in violation of United States sanctions against Iran.

Ms. Meng’s lawyers argued that, because Canada didn’t have similar sanctions in place at the time she is alleged to have lied to obtain the loan, the requirement for double criminality hadn’t been met. 

The judge disagreed with this argument and concluded instead that it was the “essence of the offence” that must exist in both countries. She reasoned that fraud can be committed in both the United States and Canada if you lie in order to obtain a loan. 

Interestingly, fraud of this kind can occur even where the loan is repaid as promised. The theory of this is that the other party was put at risk: in this case, the banks were put at risk of being charged with violating the United States sanctions against Iran. 

The way the Canadian justice system has dealt with Ms. Meng is in sharp contrast to how the two Canadians have been dealt with by China.

Ms. Meng is free on bail, living in a mansion in Vancouver, and is availing herself of the Canadian justice system that affords transparent hearings, with an independent judge, legal counsel and all of the other elements of a system premised on the rule of law. 

In contrast, the Chinese government arrested two Canadian men days after Ms. Meng was arrested, in retaliation. The men have spent more than 530 days in jail, without bail and without a trial. Their names of the men are Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig. 

This conduct, by the Chinese government, will have no impact on the judicial process. It may, however, inform the Minister’s decision concerning extradition. Refusing extradition, in this context, would encourage future retaliatory arrests by China or other authoritarian regimes. 

Also discussed on the show is a case involving a law firm that is suing Google, and an unknown person, for a review left on Google Maps. The law firm is in the process of obtaining a “Norwich order” to require Google to turn over IP, and other information, to reveal the identity of the person who left the review so that they can be named in the civil action.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.