Mint Legal

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 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 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 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 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! 🥚💛

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

Eid Mubarak from all of us at Mint Legal 🌙

❤️

🍀 Feeling lucky today!

Happy St. Patrick’s Day from all of us at Mint Legal. Wishing you a day full of good fortune and positive outcomes. 💚

Did you know a gap year doesn't always pause child support?

In the recent case of Saldiran v Saldiran, the court shed light on a common situation. The father thought he could stop child support when his son took a gap year. However, the court ruled otherwise due to the son's surgery and upcoming university plans. The gap year was deemed transitional, maintaining his status as a “child of the marriage.”

Curious about how legal nuances affect child support? Contact Mint Legal to set up a free consult! 587-602-3302