Mint Legal

Directions Website Contact the practice

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

This Thanksgiving, we're taking a moment to appreciate the people who make our work meaningful.To our clients, thank you...
10/11/2026

This Thanksgiving, we're taking a moment to appreciate the people who make our work meaningful.

To our clients, thank you for trusting us to guide you through some of life's most important and challenging moments. To our colleagues and community, thank you for your continued support and encouragement.

Wishing everyone a wonderful Thanksgiving filled with warmth, connection, and time with the people who matter most. 🧡

Happy Thanksgiving from all of us at Mint Legal!

In a recent decision, Smith v Smith 2026 ABCA 130, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the KB court's decision reinforcin...
07/09/2026

In a recent decision, Smith v Smith 2026 ABCA 130, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the KB court's decision reinforcing the mother's primary role in parenting after a family move to Bermuda. 🌴 Despite initial agreement on relocation for the mother’s career, the father returned to Alberta, 🇨🇦 seeking a different arrangement.

The courts sided with the mother, emphasizing her pivotal role as the family’s primary caregiver and income earner. 💰The father's parenting time was ordered during school breaks. ✈️

This case highlights the complexities of parental responsibilities across borders, where consistency and reliability tip the scales. Thinking of similar arrangements? Understand the implications before making moves.

In Muldoon v. Muldoon, 2026 ABKB 298, the Alberta Court refused to enforce an unsigned settlement negotiated through law...
07/07/2026

In Muldoon v. Muldoon, 2026 ABKB 298, the Alberta Court refused to enforce an unsigned settlement negotiated through lawyers' emails because it did not meet the formal ex*****on requirements of the Family Property Act.

The parties and their lawyers had hammered out most of the details to resolve the separation, but had not yet signed with their counsel. The emails tended to show that an agreement in principle had been reached.

The Court declined to find that the documents met the requirements of a separation agreement under the legislation. However, the Court did note that the written negotiations may still be considered in future property division proceedings under the Act.

The decision is an important reminder that even when parties appear to have reached a settlement, family property agreements must comply with the Act's formal requirements to be directly enforceable.

Happy Canada Day from Mint Legal! 🇨🇦Today, we celebrate the people, communities, and connections that make Canada home. ...
07/02/2026

Happy Canada Day from Mint Legal! 🇨🇦

Today, we celebrate the people, communities, and connections that make Canada home. We are grateful to support families, businesses, and individuals through life’s important transitions with clarity, care, and compassion.

Wishing everyone a safe, joyful, and meaningful Canada Day.

Summer 2026 Pricing is here — and your separation agreement just got more affordable.At Mint Legal, we make the signing ...
06/29/2026

Summer 2026 Pricing is here — and your separation agreement just got more affordable.

At Mint Legal, we make the signing process simple, personal, and professionally done. Starting at just $700 + GST, our separation agreement service includes everything you need to move forward with confidence:

✅ Advanced review of your agreement
✅ Personalized legal advice
✅ Certificate of Independent Legal Advice
✅ Face-to-face signing
✅ Post-signing administrative work
Our team is here to make sure you understand every line before you sign, so you can close this chapter with clarity and peace of mind. 💙

📞 587-602-3302
🌐 www.mintlegal.ca/ila

In JFR v MAB, 2026 ABKB 342, Justice Magnan declined to rely on the parties' PN8 parenting assessment, instead preferrin...
06/25/2026

In JFR v MAB, 2026 ABKB 342, Justice Magnan declined to rely on the parties' PN8 parenting assessment, instead preferring the direct testimony of both parents to determine what arrangement best served their almost 13-year-old son's interests.

The parents had been separated for over a decade. The father relocated to Winnipeg shortly after the split, while the mother assumed primary care. Upon his return to Calgary in 2020, a 2022 interim order granted him eight hours of parenting time each weekend. He now sought a week-on, week-off arrangement. The mother opposed this, citing their son's heightened anxiety and need for routine stability.

Although the PN8 report largely supported the mother's position, a subsequent Work Product Review raised serious concerns about its reliability and methodology. Justice Magnan noted the report had been completed when the child was ten — rendering it significantly less relevant three years later — and found it appeared partly one-sided.

She emphasized that determining a child's best interests is a non-delegable judicial duty. Expert reports are tools, not binding determinations.

Ultimately, Justice Magnan preserved the mother's primary care role while ordering a gradual increase in the father's parenting time, including overnights — structured by the court to relieve the child of any pressure to choose.

There's a new generation of family lawyers making their mark in Calgary — and they're doing it differently.Meet Kathleen...
06/22/2026

There's a new generation of family lawyers making their mark in Calgary — and they're doing it differently.

Meet Kathleen Ard, a rising voice in Alberta family law whose approach blends sharp legal expertise with something the courtroom doesn't always see enough of: genuine human compassion.

Kathleen has quickly built a reputation for taking on complex separation, divorce, and parenting matters with the kind of clarity and care that turns an overwhelming process into a manageable one. Clients consistently describe their experience as feeling heard, not just represented.

What sets Kathleen apart isn't just her technical skill, though that's considerable. It's the philosophy behind her practice: that family law clients are navigating some of the most emotionally charged moments of their lives, and they deserve a lawyer who understands that.

In a legal landscape increasingly shaped by consumer choice, lawyers who understand both the letter of the law and its human stakes are exactly who clients need.

We are proud to have Kathleen on our team.

To book in a free consultation, contact [email protected]

Happy Father's Day to all the amazing dads out there! 🎉👨‍We're grateful for every family we get to support. Wishing you ...
06/21/2026

Happy Father's Day to all the amazing dads out there! 🎉👨‍

We're grateful for every family we get to support. Wishing you a day full of love, laughter, and zero legal drama. 😄💙

"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]

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:

Shortcuts

Share