“Changing a child’s name is not a mere administrative act. See: Herniman v. Woltz, 1996 CanLII 8087 (ON SC), [1996] O.J. No. 1083 (Ont. Gen. Div.). A child’s surname is important. In many ways, the surname speaks to who the person is, and is not simply a convenient means of identification. See: Hill v. Shimla, [1995] O.J. No. 3311 (Ontario Court of Justice (General Division – Family Court); Belisle v. Poole (1994), 2 R.F.L. (4th) 165 (Ont. Gen. Div.).
The court should be mindful of the parties’ agreement about what to name a child at birth. See: Hill v. Shimla, supra.
The jurisprudence has set out factors for the court to consider in determining whether a prohibition of a name change is in a child’s best interests. These factors include:
a) Whether the proposed name change will exclude the name of the non-custodial parent.
b) The length of time a custodial parent has had sole custody of the child.
c) Whether there is a continuing close relationship between the child and the non-custodial parent.
d) Whether there would be any serious effect on the non-custodial parent.
e) Whether either parent has displayed any malice or improper motivation.
f) The age of the child and the weight to be given to the child’s wishes, in light of that age.
g) The length of time the child has had its name.
h) The surnames of any siblings.
See: Hornan v. Hornan, [2007] MBQB 261; Skoglund v. Dimmery (1989), 1989 CanLII 7405 (MB QB), 59 Man. R. (2d) 154 (Man. Q.B.); Herniman v. Woltz, supra; Melvin v. Burwell, supra; Zho v. Chen, supra.”
Hermanson v. Kiarie, 2017 ONCJ 598 (CanLII) at 20-22