Page 9 of 10
PROTECTED B WHEN COMPLETED
• objectives should be S.M.A.R.T. (specific, measurable, aligned with the wanted
outcome, realistic and timely), and include a measurement strategy for monitoring,
reporting on progress, and course correcting if necessary, based on:
o an employment systems review to identify the extent to which the institution’s
current recruitment practices are open and transparent; barriers or practices that
could be having an adverse effect on the employment of individuals from the
FDGs; and corrective measures that will be taken to address systematic
inequities (an example of corrective measures that could be taken by institution
s
i
n Ontario is provided on the Ontario Human Rights Commission website
);
o a comparative review—by gender, designated group, and field of research—of
the level of institutional support (e.g., protected time for research, salary and
benefits, additional research funds, office space, mentoring, administrative
s
upport, equipment, etc.) provided to all current chairholders, including
measures to address systemic inequities;
o an environmental scan to gauge the health of the institution’s current workplace
environment and the impact that this may be having (either positive or negative)
on the institution’s ability to meet its equity, diversity, and inclusion objectives,
and measures that will be taken to address any issues raised; and
o the institution’s unique challenges based on its characteristics (e.g., size,
language requirements, geographic location, etc.) in meeting its equity targets,
and how these will be managed and mitigated.
• institutions will be required to report to the program and publicly on the progress made in
m
eeting their objectives on a yearly basis.
2) Management of Canada Research Chair Allocations
Provide a description of:
• the institution’s policies and processes for recruiting Canada Research chairholders, and
al
l safeguards that are in place to ensure that these practices are open and transparent;
• how the institution manages its allocation of chairs and who is involved in these
decisions (e.g., committee(s), vice-president level administrators, deans / department
heads);
• the institution’s decision-making process for determining in which faculty, department,
research area to allocate its chair positions, and who approves these decisions;
• the decision-making process for how the institution chooses to use the corridor of
flexibility in managing its allocation of chairs, and who approves these decisions;
• the decision-making process and criteria for determining whether Tier 2 and Tier 1
chairholders will be submitted for renewal and who is involved in these decisions;
• the process and criteria for deciding whether to advance individuals from a Tier 2 chair
to a Tier 1 chair, and who is involved in these decisions;
• the process and criteria for deciding which chairholder(s) will be phased-out in the case
w
here the institution loses a chair due to the re-allocation process
, and who is involved
in these decisions;