BC Government Set To Prevent Serious Offenders From Changing Their Names

Photo Credit: Jason Payne/Times Colonist

On May 13, BC’s health minister, Adrian Dix, introduced the Name Amendment Act, which prevents serious criminal offenders from changing their legal names. The proposed amendment would apply to offenders sentenced as adults, as well as individuals who are found not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder.

The legislation was prompted by the situation surrounding Allan Schoenborn, who was permitted to change his name to Ken John Johnson in 2021. Schoenborn had been living at a psychiatric hospital in Port Coquitlam after being charged for the killing of his three children in 2010. He was diagnosed with a delusional disorder and found not criminally liable for the deaths, but decided to apply for a name change which was approved and enacted in May of 2021. 

Dave Teixeira, the spokesperson of the victims, posted the BC Vital Statistics Certificate of Name Change document on social media. Schoenborn’s case, along with those of Canadian killers such as Vince Li, Karla Homolka and Kelly Ellard, set the scene for the Name Amendment Act.

Allowing offenders to hide their identity can be “extremely troubling to victims and their families and can result in safety concerns for members of the public,” said Dix in a statement. “What it ensures really is more safety.”

Prior to the proposal of the Act, BC United leader Kevin Falcon introduced a private member’s bill with similar legislation. In a press conference, Falcon supported putting “the interests of community safety well above the interest of Allan Schoenborn to have his name changed so that he can move around the community unnoticed.”

The official opposition argued that the government has a preexisting responsibility to deny name changes when it is “sought for an improper purpose or is on any other ground objectionable,” as should have been the case for Schoenborn. 

Victoria defence lawyer Robert Mulligan came directly to the defence of Schoenborn, claiming that someone should not have to “remain connected for life to the worst time of their past”, according to the Vancouver Sun. He stated that it would be unhelpful for criminals to have to reference their past during the process of rehabilitation, and that the Act may intrude upon some Charter rights.