Start with the right process.
MIT means Mandatory Intake Triage. It is part of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta’s Family Focused Protocol (FFP), effective 2 January 2026. The protocol provides Regular, Desk and Urgent processes; the package discussed here concerns the Regular Family Process. Court notice: FFP introduction and Regular Family Process.
This is NISI’s working checklist for law-firm coordination, not the Court’s official checklist, legal advice or a complete statement of procedural requirements. Counsel must confirm the applicable route, current rules, practice notes, orders and forms for the matter. The Court’s FFP page links the June 2026 manual and current forms.
Seven checks before the next handoff.
Confirm the route and who is seeking relief.
Record the judicial centre, existing proceeding, relief sought and any applicable order. Check the Court’s June 2026 included and excluded matters list before treating the Regular Family Process as the right route. An applicant, responding party and cross-applicant may have different filing obligations.
Suggested working record: one short route note, the authority checked, counsel’s confirmation and the date checked. Leave unresolved routing questions visible rather than marking the package ready.
Evidence the applicable pre-court requirements.
Check parenting education, dispute resolution, disclosure and any applicable Family Court Counsellor requirement. The current pre-court notice names Edmonton, Calgary, Red Deer and Grande Prairie and includes exceptions. Counsellor requirements concern qualifying self-represented parties. Do not confuse the geographic reach of that notice with the FFP as a whole. NPP 2026-01, revised 12 January 2026.
Suggested working record: for each applicable requirement, link the supporting document or relevant waiver/deferral, name the person checking it and flag anything still needed. A request for a waiver is not an order granting it.
Build a document inventory from the current guidance.
The June manual identifies the package’s document categories: evidence of mandatory requirements or relief from them, commencement documents and pleadings, the MIT request and summary forms, financial disclosure, and applicable application materials. It also directs separate submission of documents rather than attachments to the MIT Summary. Check the specific documents required for the relief sought. FFP Manual, pages 20–22.
Suggested working record: a row per document with its source, version, preparation owner, review status and intended use. Retrieve forms from the Court’s current listing rather than reusing an unchecked office copy.
Separate receipt, currency and completeness.
The June manual measures financial-disclosure recency over six months from MIT package filing and describes strict compliance in detail. A document’s arrival does not establish that the disclosure is complete or current. FFP Manual, disclosure guidance, pages 59–61.
Suggested working record: record both the date received and the period covered. Track missing pages, superseded versions and unanswered requests separately. If filing moves, revisit currency instead of relying on an earlier review date.
Review the package as a whole.
Before the next handoff, reconcile the relief sought, supporting documents and latest client instructions. Check that a proposed term has not become an agreed fact in a summary. Identify any internal draft that has not been approved for use.
Suggested working record: preserve the reviewed version and counsel’s direction. Use separate statuses for prepared, reviewed and authorised for submission. This is a suggested office control, not a Court-prescribed status system.
Keep filing and service evidence separate.
The Court’s notice requires service of the filed MIT package and an affidavit of service. Applicable response and reply steps also matter. Use the governing directions rather than assuming an upload completes the process. FFP notice, filing/service and Appendix A.
Suggested working record: retain the submission record, filed documents, service evidence and any rejection or correction request. Name the owner of each remaining step. A prepared email, uploaded draft or internal “done” label is not evidence of service.
Carry the result into the next step.
CMO review can lead to certification, required corrections or rejection. The Court’s notice provides a 30-day window after the certification email to complete the booking link. Read the actual Court communication and current guidance when diarising the next action. FFP notice, CMO review and MIT scheduling.
Suggested working record: capture the communication, its received date, the next action, owner and verified due date. Keep correction work visible until the result is confirmed. After the hearing, review the report and orders for further work rather than closing the preparation task and losing its follow-up.
A small example: a promised statement.
In NISI’s fictional Harbour matter, Alex promises the latest bank statement. The email is received; the statement is not. An internal conference brief can be prepared and reviewed while that gap remains open.
Useful follow-through would identify the missing item, prepare a specific request for counsel’s review and retain the unresolved status. If a statement later arrives, receipt, period covered and completeness still need checking. None of those steps, alone, proves an MIT package is compliant.
Harbour’s Thursday appointment is a client conference, not an MIT hearing. The demonstration illustrates coordination around preparation; it does not generate or file an official MIT package.
Inspect the Harbour examplesWhere NISI fits.
NISI is AI workflow software for Alberta family-law firms. It connects incoming correspondence, disclosure, prepared work and counsel’s direction through one matter record. The preparation around FFP stays connected to the rest of the file.
The website demonstrations are scripted. Early access is presale, with workflow scope and availability confirmed for each practice. NISI does not replace counsel’s procedural assessment or the Court’s review.