The Change of Name Act, 2009 (Amendment) adds a certified criminal records check requirement for nearly all adult applicants and creates a list of Criminal Code offences that can disqualify someone from obtaining a legal name change. If a records check shows a conviction for a 'listed offence,' the registrar general must forward the application and supporting documents to the minister, who may refuse the change.
The amendments also require the registrar general to publish granted given-name changes in the Gazette, while giving the minister the power to exempt certain applicants from publication and to set conditions for notification where publication is dispensed with.
Practically, the law gives government a pre-emptive public-safety tool tailored to sexual and related historical offences, while expanding ministerial discretion and administrative duties. It also modernizes language in the statute (gender-neutral terms) and updates court terminology.
Compliance officers, registrars, policing bodies that issue certified checks, and legal advisers for people seeking name changes should expect new procedural steps and potential contested decisions under ministerial authority.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill makes certified criminal-record checks mandatory for most name-change applicants and defines a set of 'listed offences' — primarily sexual offences and historical rape provisions — that trigger ministerial review. The registrar general must publish given-name changes in the Gazette, subject to ministerial exemptions and additional notification conditions.
Who It Affects
Registrar General offices, the minister's office, law-enforcement agencies that provide certified checks (Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, RCMP, or approved providers), applicants for adult name changes (especially those with sexual-offence convictions), and persons whose names appear on documents referencing a changed name. Child name-change applications are explicitly exempted from the records-check requirement.
Why It Matters
This amendment prioritizes survivor safety and public notice over anonymity for certain convicted offenders, while creating a formal role for the minister in individual name-change determinations. The change imposes new operational responsibilities on registries and record providers and raises administrative- and legal-review risks when the minister exercises refusal or exemption powers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The amendment inserts a new operational screen into Newfoundland and Labrador's name-change process. An adult applying to change their name must now attach a certified criminal records check from the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the RCMP, or another minister-approved provider.
If that check reveals a conviction for any offence on a new statutory list, the registrar general no longer decides alone: the application and supporting materials must be sent to the minister for a grant-or-refuse determination.
The 'listed offence' catalogue is narrowly focused on sexual offences and older rape provisions: items include child pornography, luring a child, sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault (including firearm-related variants), trafficking and procuring involving persons under 18, and several historical rape/sexual-assault provisions as they existed prior to 1983 and in the 1980s reforms. That list, not an open-ended standard, is the statutory hook that triggers ministerial review.Publication rules change the visibility of granted name changes.
The registrar general must publish a notice of a granted change of given name in the Gazette unless the minister allows an exemption. The minister can exempt publication where the applicant would be unduly prejudiced or embarrassed, the change is of minor effect, or the applicant has already been commonly known by the new name; the minister can also attach other notification terms when dispensing with publication.
The legislation also modernizes statutory language to gender-neutral phrasing and updates court terminology (e.g., replacing Trial Division with Supreme Court), and it contains a transitional rule: applications filed before the amendments came into force do not need the new criminal-record check.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires a certified criminal records check from the RNC, RCMP or a minister-approved provider for nearly all adult name-change applicants (child name changes are exempt).
It creates a statutory definition of 'listed offence' made up mainly of sexual-offence provisions and historical rape statutes; a conviction for any listed offence triggers ministerial review.
If a records check shows a conviction for a listed offence, the registrar general must forward the application and supporting documents to the minister, who may direct refusal under the Act.
The registrar general must publish a notice of a granted change of given name in the Gazette, though the minister may exempt publication for specified reasons and impose alternative notification terms.
The amendments substitute gender-neutral terms across the Act, update court-language references, and include a transitional clause exempting already-filed applications from the new records-check requirement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Court and terminology updates
The amendment replaces references to the 'Trial Division' with 'Supreme Court' and defines 'department' for ministerial context. It also broadens 'judge' to mean a judge of either the Provincial Court or Supreme Court as required by context. These are drafting clean-ups but affect where certain judicial applications or appeals may be brought and clarify institutional responsibility.
Precisely lists convictions that can bar a name change
The Act now defines 'listed offence' by enumerating Criminal Code provisions (child pornography, luring, various sexual-assault and aggravated-sexual-assault provisions, trafficking and procuring relating to persons under 18) and older rape/sexual-assault provisions from earlier Criminal Code iterations. Because the statute ties ministerial review to this defined set, whether a conviction falls within the listed wording determines if the minister gets involved — not a broader risk-assessment test.
Certified criminal-record check requirement
The law adds an express requirement that applicants provide a certified criminal records check acceptable to the registrar general, specifying acceptable issuers (RNC, RCMP or a minister-approved organization). The text also creates an explicit exception: applications that concern changing a child's name do not need a records check. Practically, registries must adopt a process to accept, verify and store certified checks from approved providers.
Ministerial review triggered by listed-offence convictions
If the certified check discloses a conviction for a listed offence, subsection (1.1) requires the registrar general to provide the full application package to the minister, who then decides whether to grant or refuse the change. The procedural change also adjusts the registrar's refusal grounds to include a ministerial direction to refuse. This moves a gatekeeping decision from an administrative registrar to a political executive decision-maker in cases involving certain criminal histories.
Mandatory Gazette publication with ministerial exemptions
Section 14 now obliges the registrar general to publish granted given-name changes in the Gazette 'immediately' unless the minister permits an exemption. The minister may exempt publication if the applicant would be unduly prejudiced or embarrassed, the change is of minor effect, or the applicant is already commonly known by the new name; the minister may also impose other notification conditions where publication is dispensed with. This centralizes discretion over publicity in the minister's office.
Gender-neutral drafting and document-reference clarifications
Several provisions replace gendered pronouns with neutral language, clarify how name-change consequences affect documents referencing the person (Section 16(5) tightened to require consent when both parties are referenced), and make small edits about ministerial vs. registrar responsibilities. These are conventional statutory-modernization edits but adjust the text courts or registrars will read when resolving disputes.
Applications filed before commencement are grandfathered
The Act states that applicants who filed before the amendments came into force do not have to provide the newly required certified criminal records check. That prevents the retroactive imposition of the procedural hurdle on pending cases but means new incoming applications will follow the updated pathway.
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
- Survivors and members of the public seeking transparency — by making many given-name changes public in the Gazette and enabling ministerial refusal for those with convictions on the listed offences, the law increases notice to communities and potential victims about name changes by certain offenders.
- Registrar General offices and government decision-makers — the statute gives them explicit legal authority to request records, forward cases, refuse based on ministerial direction, and to set notification rules where publication is dispensed with, reducing ambiguity about roles.
- Law enforcement and certified-record providers (RNC, RCMP, approved organizations) — the amendments create a predictable demand for certified criminal-record checks and a formal channel for those checks to trigger administrative review.
- Children and guardians — because the law exempts child-name-change applications from the records-check requirement, parents and guardians avoid additional privacy intrusions when seeking name changes for minors.
Who Bears the Cost
- Applicants with criminal records — individuals with convictions for any listed offence face a higher likelihood of refusal and loss of anonymity; they must also pay for and procure certified checks and potentially contest ministerial refusals.
- Registrar General's office — the registry must process certified checks, manage forwarded files for ministerial review, and implement publication and exemption workflows, creating staffing and IT demands.
- Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, RCMP and approved providers — these bodies will see increased administrative workload from producing certified checks and may need to coordinate formats and verification standards acceptable to the registrar general.
- Minister's office — the minister must make potentially sensitive case-by-case decisions and may face legal review or political scrutiny where refusals or exemptions are contested, imposing legal and reputational costs on the executive.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing community safety and the public's right to be informed about name changes by certain convicted offenders against the interests of privacy, rehabilitation, and procedural fairness: the amendment strengthens disclosure and executive control to reduce risk, but it does so by expanding ministerial discretion and administrative intrusion into identity changes.
The amendments trade anonymity and administrative simplicity for targeted public-safety oversight in a narrow class of offences. That trade produces several implementation challenges: registries must set standards for what counts as a 'certified' check and which third-party providers the minister will approve; law-enforcement agencies must absorb added demand; and the minister's office must design a defensible internal decision process for handling forwarded files.
Because the minister's refusal power is discretionary rather than governed by a detailed statutory standard, applicants denied a change may rely on judicial review, creating litigation risk and uncertain timelines.
Another unresolved practical issue is the durability and scope of the 'listed offence' approach. The list is explicit, which reduces vagueness, but it also means offences that pose public-safety risks but fall outside the enumerated provisions are excluded from the ministerial gatekeeping mechanism.
Finally, publication in the Gazette increases transparency but raises privacy and safety concerns for applicants legitimately seeking new identities for protection; while the minister can exempt publication, that exemption itself is discretionary and may be applied unevenly without published criteria or appeal routes.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.