Mint Legal

📢 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. 💚🌱

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