Mint Legal

Mint Legal A south Calgary general practice law firm. Check out our flat rates, and subscription services.

"Allow me to introduce my new boyfiend. Boyfriend, meet my ex-husband" In Offrey v Offrey, 2026 ABKB 335, Justice Mandzi...
06/09/2026

"Allow me to introduce my new boyfiend. Boyfriend, meet my ex-husband"

In Offrey v Offrey, 2026 ABKB 335, Justice Mandziuk ruled on the language of a parenting order clause governing how and when two children, aged seven and nine, could be introduced to a parent's new romantic partner.

At trial, both parties were agreeable to adding wording to restrict the introduction of new partners, but the parties did not agree on the parameters. Justice Mandziuk rejected the father's proposal to make introductions contingent on a parenting coordinator's recommendation, finding the parties' level of conflict didn't justify the added expense of a quasi-judicial determination.

He did, however, find it appropriate to require the introducing parent to first consult any psychologist already treating either child.

The judge also endorsed a six-month relationship minimum before any introduction could occur, and a requirement that the new partner meet the other parent first. The father's proposed nine-month waiting period was rejected as offering no clear additional benefit.

Ultimately, the court prioritize reduced conflict over added constraints. The judge's decision reinforced a key principle: while the parties share parenting responsibilities, they do not share their personal lives.

An Ontario court just refused a father's request to DNA test his four children (ages 9–18+). The father claimed he suspe...
06/05/2026

An Ontario court just refused a father's request to DNA test his four children (ages 9–18+). The father claimed he suspected infidelity throughout their 17-year relationship, but admitted upfront he'd keep parenting the kids no matter what the results showed. It was clear that his true goal was to prove the mother had lied.

Accordingly, Justice Kamal found the application had nothing to do with the children's wellbeing and everything to do with humiliating the mother. Forcing kids into paternity testing, raising questions about their own identities, causes real harm. If the outcome wouldn't change his parenting, what was the point?

The application was dismissed. The father was also ordered not to speak negatively about the mother in front of the children or suggest their conception was tied to alleged s*x work.

Justice Kamal characterized the father's actions as litigation abuse and coercive control.

If you found this case interesting, learn more on our blog at www.mintlegal.ca/minty-blog

Need family law help? Set up a free consult 587-602-3302 or [email protected]

Meet Jannat Zia — family lawyer and the newest member of the Mint Legal team. 🌿Before joining Mint Legal, Jannat practic...
06/04/2026

Meet Jannat Zia — family lawyer and the newest member of the Mint Legal team. 🌿

Before joining Mint Legal, Jannat practiced family law in Ontario, building a diverse client base and a reputation for clear, results-driven legal advice. Take advantage of Jannat's low introductory hourly rate.

⚠️ Now accepting new clients — spots are limited.

📞 587-602-3302
📧 [email protected]
🌐 www.mintlegal.ca

Summer 2026 just got a fresh start.Ready to close a chapter? Mint Legal is making it easier, and more affordable, than e...
06/02/2026

Summer 2026 just got a fresh start.

Ready to close a chapter? Mint Legal is making it easier, and more affordable, than ever.

Get an uncontested divorce for just $1,750 + GST this summer. 🌿

No stress. No confusion. Just a straightforward, lawyer-completed process. Whether you need a rush signing or simply want it handled properly and affordably, Mint Legal has you covered — right on Macleod Trail.

📞 587-602-3302
📧 [email protected]
🌐 www.mintlegal.ca/divorce

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized a new tort for intimate partner violence. What does this mean? Survivors can ...
06/01/2026

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized a new tort for intimate partner violence. What does this mean? Survivors can now sue their abusers in civil court under a cause of action specifically designed to capture the full reality of abuse.

Currently, existing laws (assault, battery, etc.) only address individual harmful acts. These laws fail to capture the sustained patterns of coercion and control that define abusive relationships. The new Canadian tort of intimate partner violence creates a new area of law meant to address and compensate victims of domestic violence.

To succeed in suing an abuser, a survivor must show:
✅ The abuse occurred within an intimate partnership
✅ The abuser acted intentionally
✅ The conduct amounted to coercive control

It is important to note: this isn't just about isolated incidents. It's about one partner deliberately dominating the other on an ongoing and continual basis.

In this case, Ms. Ahluwalia endured years of abuse that controlled her career, her relationships, and her freedom to make her own choices. The Court found she met the new standard.

By the time the case made it to the Supreme Court, the parties had already reached an agreement for Mr. Ahluwalia to pay a lump sum of $100K. However the court commented that damages in these cases should be higher than under traditional torts, because coercive control causes harms that go beyond physical or psychological injury alone.

A massive step forward for survivors. 💙

Mint Legal has experience representing clients where family violence is involved. For more information or to set up a free consult, call us today 587-602-3302

Happy Mother’s Day from all of us at Mint Legal! 💐At our firm, we see firsthand the love and sacrifice that mothers brin...
05/10/2026

Happy Mother’s Day from all of us at Mint Legal! 💐

At our firm, we see firsthand the love and sacrifice that mothers bring to their families, even during life’s most challenging moments. We honor you today and every day. Wishing you a day filled with love, appreciation, and peace. ❤️

📢 A pivotal shift in legal interpretations! The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in Dhanesar v. Pandher, has redefined ...
05/06/2026

📢 A pivotal shift in legal interpretations! The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in Dhanesar v. Pandher, has redefined how contractual discretion should be perceived. When a property sale fell through, the crux of the debate revolved around the buyer's expectations versus the seller's obligations under their contract. Initially, the trial court sided with the seller, but the Court of Appeal disagreed. It emphasized that exercising contractual discretion must align with the contract's intrinsic aims rather than subjective standards.

This ruling draws from the Supreme Court’s stance in Wastech Services Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District. The punchline: Discretion isn't just about reasonableness; it's about staying true to the contract's core purposes.

Contact Mint Legal for deeper insights and expert advice! 📞🔍

Earth Day is a reminder that the small choices we make—personally and professionally—can have a lasting impact.At Mint L...
04/22/2026

Earth Day is a reminder that the small choices we make—personally and professionally—can have a lasting impact.

At Mint Legal, we’re committed to thoughtful, sustainable practices wherever we can, from how we work to how we serve our clients.

Today, we reflect. Tomorrow, we keep improving. 💚🌱

🐰✨ Happy Easter from all of us at Mint Legal! 🥚💛
04/05/2026

🐰✨ Happy Easter from all of us at Mint Legal! 🥚💛

In the case SA v ZR, 2026 BCCA 19, the BC Court of Appeal just served up a powerful reminder: if you’re underemployed, y...
04/03/2026

In the case SA v ZR, 2026 BCCA 19, the BC Court of Appeal just served up a powerful reminder: if you’re underemployed, you’ve got to justify it! SA v ZR highlights the complexities of income assessment in child support matters. In this instance, the Court upheld a ruling to impute the husband's income at $325,000, despite his claim that his local job limitations impacted his earnings.

Drawing on similar cases in Alberta, the Court clarified that when a spouse is under-employed, the burden of proof lies with them to justify this choice. Interestingly, the Court noted that the husband's own testimony suggested he had the capability to work more flexibly and earn significantly more.

Questions about imputed income? Reach out to Mint Legal. Let us guide you through these legal currents. Contact us today! 📞✨ 587-602-3302

Address

7721 Macleod Trail SW
Calgary, AB
T2H0M6

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Mint Legal posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Mint Legal:

Share