No. $-192260 ‘Vancouver Registry In the Supreme Court of British Columbia Wanzhou Meng Plaintift and Officer Sowmith Katragadda, CBSA Officer John Doe 2, Officer Scott Kirkland, Constable Winston Yep, and the Attorney General of Canada Defendants AMENDED RESPONSE TO,CIVIL CLAIM Filed by: Sowmith Katragadda, Scott Kirkland, Winston Yep and the Attorney General of Canada (the “Defendants”) ObJUNL9 1913128 ROSD 5192260 Part 1: RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM FACTS Overview 1. On December 1, 2018, the plaintiff, Wanzhou Meng, arrived at the Vancouver International Airport on a flight from Hong Kong. Like other international travelers arriving in Canada, the plaintiff and her goods were subject to examination for immigration and customs purposes by Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) officers. 2. CBSA officers, acting lawfully and in good faith, interviewed the plaintiff and examined her luggage to determine if she was admissible to Canada and if there were any customs issues with her goods. After doing so, they allowed her temporary entry into Canada pending the completion of her immigration examination. 3. Although the CBSA officers were aware that the plaintiff was the subject of a provisional arrest warrant (the “Extradition Warrant”) issued under the Extradition Act, they examined the plaintiff and her luggage only for immigration and customs purpos 4. After the CBSA officers had conducted their examinations for immigration and custom purposes, the plaintiff spoke with Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) officers. The RCMP officers, acting lawfully and in good faith at all times, advised the plaintiff of the Extradition Warrant and arrested her under the Warrant. The RCMP officers notified the plaintiff of her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) upon her arrest and provided her with those rights including arranging for her to speak to a lawyer in a timely manner upon request. Page 1 of 10‘The plaintiff's allegations that her Charter rights were violated, that the Defendants acted unlawfully and that she suffered harm are without merit. The claim against the Defendants should be dismissed with costs. Division 1—Defendants’ Response to Facts The facts alleged in the following paragraphs of Part 1 of the notice of civil claim are admitted: 3-13. The plaintiff's statement of facts contains statements of law and argument that are improper pleading and should be struck. Where the Defendants admit portions of paragraphs, this will be addressed in Division 2. Otherwise, the facts alleged in the following paragraphs of Part 1 of the notice of civil claim are denied: 1, 2, and 15-40. Paragraph 14 of Part | of the notice of civil claim contains only conclusions of law and not material facts, ‘The facts alleged in the following paragraphs of Part 1 of the notice of civil claim are outside the knowledge of the Defendants: NIL. Division 2—Defendants’ Version of Facts On November 30, 2018, CBSA officers at the Vancouver Intemational Airport (the “Airport”) were contacted by United States law enforcement about the possibility that an extradition warrant might have to be executed on a traveler transiting through the Airport the following day, and asked about contact information for officers on shift the following day. No details regarding the subject of the potential warrant were provided. On November 30, 2018, the Extradition Warrant for the arrest of the plaintiff was issued pursuant to the Extradition Act. Later that day, RCMP officers, including Constable Winston Yep, who was acting lawfully and in good faith at all times, met with CBSA officers at the Airport. Constable Yep informed CBSA officers of the existence of the Extradition Warrant. Constable Yep asked the CBSA officers to try to determine if the plaintiff had boarded her flight in Hong Kong. However, when Constable Yep left the Airport that night, the plaintiff's fight had not yet departed Hong Kong, so he was not able to confirm the plaintiff's presence on the flight before he lef. On the morning of December 1, 2018, CBSA confirmed that the plaintiff was on the flight arriving from Hong Kong. ‘As a result of the RCMP entering the Extradition Warrant into the Canadian Police Information System, a “lookout” was generated in the CBSA’s automated systems. The “lookout” advised CBSA officers at the Airport that the plaintiff was arriving and was subject to the Extradition Warrant. As a result of the “lookout”, the CBSA systems also Page 2 of 1010. ul 12, 13. 14. automatically directed the plaintiff to a secondary examination upon completion of the primary customs and immigration examination that all travelers undergo. Constable Yep, along with other members of the RCMP, met with CBSA officers concerning the plaintiff's arrival in Canada and the RCMP’s execution of the Extradition ‘Warrant. CBSA officers informed the RCMP officers that on the plaintiff's arrival in Canada, prior to the execution of the Extradition Warrant, the CBSA would conduct their usual customs and immigration processes in relation to the plaintiff in order to determine the plaintiff's status in Canada and to ensure that her goods could be brought into the country. Travelers and their goods arriving in Canada are subject to examination by CBSA officers under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “IRPA”) and the Customs Act. Atno time did Constable Yep, any other RCMP officer, or any representative of the United States Department of Justice, request or suggest that the CBSA pursue a particular (or any) line of questioning with the plaintiff in the course of conducting customs and immigration processes. Constable Yep requested that the CBSA protect any mobile phones that the plaintiff might have by placing them in bags, which the RCMP supplied to the CBSA, so that any data could not be remotely deleted. At no time did Constable Yep, any other RCMP officer, or any representative of the United States Department of Justice, request that the CBSA obtain passwords for any of the plaintiff's electronic devices, A CBSA supervisor assigned Border Services Officer (“BSO”) Katragadda to conduct a secondary customs and immigration examination of the plaintiff. BSO Kirkland was assigned to assist At all material times, BSO Katragadda, and'BSO Kirkland (collectively, the “Defendant CBSA officers”), were employees of the CBSA acting in good faith in the course and scope of their duties. In order to inform his examination of the plaintiff, BSO Katragadda determined that the plaintiff was a foreign national. He also conducted research on the plaintiff using publicly available websites. BSO Katragadda’s research showed, among other things, that the plaintiff was the chief financial officer of Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (“Huawei”), and the daughter of Huawei’s founder. As a result of the Extradition Warrant, and in order to ensure that they identified the plaintiff and any of her travelling companions, the CBSA decided to conduct initial documentation checks on the passengers aboard the plaintif’s flight at the gate, as they disembarked the plane. Documentation checks at gates are. conducted by CBSA officers at the Airport on an almost daily basis for various purposes. Select international flights are subject to these processes to identify passengers of interest before they proceed into the Airport. ‘The plaintiff's flight arrived at the Airport at or around 11:10 a.m, on December 1, 2018. Page 3 of 10