Alberta’s Bill 28 amends the Vital Statistics Act to prevent adults convicted of a prescribed “designated offence” from registering a proposed name change. Applicants must provide information confirming that they have not been convicted of such an offence, and the Registrar must refuse the registration if the conviction exists.
The bill does not itself list the offences covered. Instead, it delegates that choice to regulations.
It also changes the terminology for agencies that take fingerprints, extends the retention period for name-change records before archival release, and creates a related regulatory authority.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill defines “designated offence” by reference to future regulations. It requires adult name-change applicants to provide prescribed information about qualifying convictions and directs the Registrar to refuse a proposed name where the applicant has been convicted of a designated offence.
Who It Affects
The direct impact falls on Alberta residents aged 18 or older who seek a legal name change, particularly people with convictions for offences later designated by regulation. The Registrar, applicants, fingerprinting agencies and the Provincial Archives also receive new or modified administrative responsibilities.
Why It Matters
The bill turns the name-change process into a targeted post-conviction restriction rather than a generally available administrative service. Its practical reach will depend heavily on regulations that determine which offences qualify and what information applicants must provide.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 28 changes the eligibility rules for adult name changes under Alberta’s Vital Statistics Act. An applicant must still be an Alberta resident, but being at least 18 is no longer sufficient on its own: the applicant must also have no conviction for a designated offence.
The bill leaves “designated offence” undefined at the statute level except to say that regulations will prescribe the offences.
The application process gains a new documentary requirement. For an adult name change, the applicant must provide whatever information the regulations require to confirm that the applicant has not been convicted of a designated offence.
The bill therefore creates a verification framework without specifying on the face of the Act whether confirmation will rely on a criminal-record check, another government record, fingerprints or a combination of methods.The Registrar receives a mandatory refusal power for the relevant applications. If the person whose name is being changed is at least 18 and has been convicted of a designated offence, the Registrar must refuse to register the proposed name under Part 3.
The wording targets registration of the new name; it does not state that an existing legal name is revoked or that every administrative use of a different name becomes unlawful.The bill also updates the Act’s terminology by replacing “law enforcement agency” with “fingerprinting agency” in the provision concerning fingerprints for applicants aged 12 or older, unless the Registrar considers fingerprints unnecessary. Separately, it allows a change-of-name record to be transferred to the Provincial Archives after 75 years have elapsed since registration, aligning that record category with the existing 75-year period for marriage records.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill applies the new eligibility restriction to people who are 18 or older; it does not impose the same statutory restriction on applicants under 18.
Regulations, rather than the Act itself, will prescribe the offences that count as designated offences.
Adult applicants must provide the information required by regulation to confirm that they have not been convicted of a designated offence.
The Registrar must refuse to register a Part 3 proposed name when the adult concerned has been convicted of a designated offence.
A change-of-name record may be transferred to the Provincial Archives after 75 years have elapsed since the name change was registered.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates the designated-offence category
Section 2 adds “designated offence” to the Act’s definitions and gives it a regulation-based meaning. The Legislature establishes the legal category, but leaves the substantive list of offences to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
That delegation is significant because the bill’s central restriction cannot be applied until the regulatory scheme identifies the convictions that qualify. The scope of the measure can therefore change through regulation without another statutory amendment.
Adds a conviction condition for adult applicants
Section 3 amends the eligibility rule for a name-change application by requiring an adult applicant to have no conviction for a designated offence. The change operates alongside the existing residency and age requirements rather than replacing them.
The provision frames the restriction around the person whose name is being changed. It does not establish a general prohibition on all name changes or identify the relevant offences directly in the Act.
Requires conviction-status information
Section 4 adds a new document or information requirement for an adult name change. Applicants must file the information prescribed by regulation to confirm that they have not been convicted of a designated offence.
The provision also changes the existing reference to a “law enforcement agency” taking fingerprints to “fingerprinting agency.” That terminology may accommodate a broader or more specialized class of authorized service providers, but the bill does not independently define the new term or prescribe a particular verification method.
Sets archival timing for name-change records
Section 5 adds change-of-name records to the records eligible for transfer to the Provincial Archives after 75 years from registration. The amendment preserves the Act’s broader framework for archival management and release on request.
This is an administrative-records change rather than a new restriction on applicants. It establishes a specific long-term retention threshold for a category of records that was not previously listed in the cited provision.
Makes refusal mandatory for qualifying convictions
Section 6 requires the Registrar to refuse registration of a proposed Part 3 name when the person is at least 18 and has been convicted of a designated offence. This removes the discretion that otherwise exists under the Act’s general name-registration refusal provision for this specific circumstance.
The provision focuses on registration of the proposed name and does not set out an appeal process, rehabilitation exception, time limit after conviction or distinction between types of qualifying convictions. Any such details would need to come from other law or the regulatory framework.
Authorizes supporting regulations
Section 7 authorizes regulations respecting the information required to confirm that a person has not been convicted of a designated offence and authorizes the prescription of designated offences.
These powers are central to implementation. They determine both the substantive reach of the restriction and the compliance steps applicants must follow, while the statute itself supplies the mandatory refusal rule.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Albertans concerned that people convicted of specified offences could use a legal name change to make identification more difficult may benefit from a formal barrier at the vital-statistics stage.
- Police, courts and other organizations that verify identity may receive a more consistent statutory framework for linking adult name-change applications to qualifying conviction information.
- The Registrar benefits from a clearer mandatory rule for a defined class of applications, reducing the need to rely on general discretionary refusal grounds.
- Researchers and archivists may benefit from a defined 75-year transfer period for change-of-name records, creating a clearer records-management schedule.
Who Bears the Cost
- Adult Albertans with a designated conviction lose the ability to register a Part 3 name change, regardless of whether the proposed name would itself create confusion or a risk of fraud.
- All adult name-change applicants may face additional paperwork, screening delays or verification costs because they must provide information prescribed to establish their conviction status.
- The Registrar and Service Alberta must design and administer the verification process, interpret regulatory requirements and handle refusals or incomplete applications.
- Fingerprinting agencies and other bodies supplying identity information may face increased demand and operational requirements if regulations use fingerprint-based or record-based checks.
- The Provincial Archives and records-management staff must preserve and eventually process an additional category of vital-statistics records under the new transfer rule.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill seeks to reduce the risk that a person with a qualifying conviction can use a legal name change to frustrate identification, but it does so through a categorical barrier that may continue long after the underlying conduct and without a statutory rehabilitation or proportionality assessment. The stronger the identification safeguard, the less flexibility remains for legitimate adult name changes and for privacy interests tied to old convictions.
The bill’s most consequential choices sit outside the enacted text. Regulations will determine which offences qualify, how far back the screening reaches, what evidence applicants must submit and how the system handles records that are incomplete, sealed, pardoned or otherwise subject to correction.
Until those details are specified, the statutory restriction has a clear direction but an uncertain operational boundary.
The mandatory refusal rule also leaves little room for individualized assessment. The Act does not distinguish among the seriousness of qualifying offences, the age of the conviction, subsequent rehabilitation or the applicant’s reason for seeking a new name.
At the same time, the bill does not expressly create a public disclosure regime: limiting registration of a new name is different from publishing a person’s conviction history, and the privacy consequences will depend on how verification information is collected, retained and shared.
The records provision creates a separate tension. Keeping name-change records for eventual archival transfer supports historical and administrative traceability, but it also preserves sensitive identity information for decades.
The bill supplies the retention threshold without addressing in this text who may access those records during the interim period or how archival release interacts with privacy protections elsewhere in Alberta law.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.