A B.C. Supreme Court judge has granted an extraordinary order to seize electronic devices from a former employee of a Lower Mainland company specializing in anti-drone technology — citing fears China or Russia might be trying to access military secrets.
Documents contained in a partially sealed civil court file detail a scene in early September in which nine people — including bailiffs, lawyers, and representatives of Burnaby-based Skycope Technologies — descended on the man’s home to seize laptops, phones and storage cards.
Skycope got the order against its former employee — known as XL — in a closed-door hearing where the company alleged the electrical engineer had handed a foreign competitor confidential information sought by unfriendly state actors.
“It is significant in this particular case that the potential harm from the disclosure of information is not limited only to [Skycope Technologies],” Justice Neena Sharma wrote in her ruling.
“I also have evidence of the potential harm to Canada’s national security interests.”
Skycope is suing XL in civil proceedings aimed at restraining him from disclosing the company’s secrets and requiring him to delete and destroy all confidential information in his possession.
Redacted copies of the file have only recently been made public after the order to enter XL’s home was issued without his knowledge. The engineer was handed a list of lawyers to contact at the same time he was given a copy of the order to cough up his devices.
In a statement to the CBC Tuesday, the lawyer XL called — Ross McGowan — said XL “both denies any wrongdoing and denies any intention of committing any wrongdoing.”
The case is grounded in the competitive world of cutting-edge anti-drone technology — the business of “detecting, identifying and neutralizing drones which enter unauthorized airspace.”
In an affidavit, Skycope boss Hamidreza Boostanimehr described his firm’s “sector-leading” technology. Engineers have cracked the radio frequency protocols of hundreds of drones — building a highly-treasured “drone library” of devices Skycope can identify and defeat.
“Drones have a wide variety of applications. They are used by hobbyists. One might see flying a drone in a public park, but there are also many commercial and industrial users,” Boostanimehr wrote.
“There are also many more sinister uses for drone technology: drones can interfere with airspace at airports and wreak havoc with air traffic control; they can remotely drop contraband behind the walls of a correctional facility; they can carry out air strikes on targets both military and civilian, and they facilitate illegal surveillance among other things. Those looking to combat those uses form a substantial portion of our end users.”
XL was hired in 2018 after graduating from Dalhousie University with a PhD in electrical and computer engineering. Boostanimeh said he went on to play an “integral part in adding many drone models to our drone library.”
On Aug. 16, XL resigned his position, allegedly telling Boostanimeh he would be getting a 50 per cent raise in a company he claimed was “not an anti-drone company in the way they represented themselves.”
“This gave me pause, as it was not a clear denial,” Boostanimeh said. “I pressed him further, and he assured me that he was not leaving Skycope to go to another anti-drone company. I remained suspicious.”
Three days later, Boostanimeh and a colleague logged into a workstation frequently used by XL. His personal email was open, and they came across “multiple email exchanges using his Gmail address with a company … located in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.”
According to Sharma’s ruling, XL was accused of sharing details during a job interview with the company, identifying information that included “one particular drone protocol which Skycope received in confidence from the Department of National Defence.”
The judge said XL’s new employer “is believed to have a parent company … which is a military and defence contractor in the UAE and has “publicly stated its willingness to supply products to Russia” and “to support Chinese and Russian defence entities through trade.”
Skycope bolstered its argument for the order to enter XL’s home with an affidavit from Calvin Chrustie, a former RCMP officer with expertise in transnational and foreign threat networks.
Chrustie noted that XL is a Chinese citizen who graduated from a school with well-known links to China’s state security agency. He also said China has passed laws that “may compel Chinese citizens, including Chinese-Canadians, to share intelligence.”
Living and working in the UAE would represent a “high-security risk” to XL, said Chrustie.
“I believe there is a high probability that the employee will be targeted by intelligence agencies for other anti-drone technology documents and/or knowledge that he may have in his possession,” Chrustie wrote.
“Should he be identified as a person of interest by intelligence agencies, I assess there to be a very high probability that the employee would be persuaded to cooperate.”
Skycope lawyer David Wotherspoon told the CBC that since the order to seize XL’s devices has been obtained and executed, the legal proceedings can now proceed like any other civil claim — albeit one with extraordinary implications.
“It is an extraordinary lawsuit in that the technology is drone detection. The business of Skycope, which is a Canadian company, their technology is used by military, by police, by correctional facilities to identify drones flying in the sky and to disable them,” he said.
“It’s because of the potential use of the technology in the military context that elevates the claim to having an issue of national security.”
Wotherspoon said military and police have not been made aware of the claims because the sealing order restricted their ability to share information with the authorities — but the allegations are now part of the public record for anyone that wants to take note.
