From 1927 until the mid-1980s, certain measures existed in Ontario to preserve anonymity between birth parents and adoptees; this was consistent with adoption practice elsewhere in Canada and the United States at that time.
Ontario Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian stated that the bill was insufficiently respectful of implicit or explicit promises of anonymity made to birth mothers in the past.
[5] [6] A group of adoptees and "birth parents", opposed to the new law, promised upon the bill's passage to mount a constitutional challenge to it, and retained noted Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby for this purpose.
[7] COAR (Coalition for Open Adoption Records) obtained amicus curiae status to put forward their side in this court case, supporting the position of the Ontario government.
[8] The presiding judge, Justice Edward Belobaba, stated that "I'm not ready to buy those three words: right to privacy," and noted earlier that the lawyers mounting the constitutional challenge on behalf of three adoptees and a birth father "have the tougher job."
Advocates of open records continue to express concern that in the wake of increased security measures, many documents relating to immigration, passports and travel require presentation of a long form birth certificate, which they say is not available to Ontario adoptees.
They claim that for adult adoptees who are unsuccessful in obtaining long form birth certificates, travel, employment and immigration can be in some circumstances effectively prohibited.