Ye v. Canada (Attorney General)

Ye v. Canada (Attorney General)

The Court dismissed the appeal because it concluded the Appeal Division's interpretation of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with respect to the Accelerated Parole scheme was reasonable and the Federal Court's endorsement of that interpretation was correct.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2018 FCA 162
Parties
Appellant: Yong Long Ye; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Federal Court Reviewing Parole Board Appeal Division Decision for Reasonableness
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Standard of Review, Reasonableness, Accelerated Parole Scheme, Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Corrections and Parole Statutory Interpretation Standard of Review Reasonableness Accelerated Parole Scheme Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yong Long Ye

Appellant

Attorney General of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Federal Court Reviewing Parole Board Appeal Division Decision for Reasonableness

  1. 1 Whether the Appeal Division's interpretation of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act regarding the Accelerated Parole scheme was reasonable
  2. 2 Whether the Federal Court correctly applied the reasonableness standard in reviewing the Appeal Division decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal because it concluded the Appeal Division's interpretation of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with respect to the Accelerated Parole scheme was reasonable and the Federal Court's endorsement of that interpretation was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs