Results of formal review of institutional equity, diversity and inclusion action plans


As an eligibility requirement of the program, all institutions with five or more chair allocations must develop and implement an institutional equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) action plan. This plan must guide institutional efforts for identifying and addressing systemic barriers to sustain the participation of and/or address the underrepresentation of individuals (based on the institution’s equity target gaps) from the four designated groups (women, Indigenous Peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities) among their chair allocations.

Plans must meet the program’s requirements.

Phase 1 and 2 review process

The plans were first submitted in December 2018. They were formally reviewed by an external panel of experts, using a two-phase process. In each phase, the panel gave every plan one of the following ratings: Exceeds, Fully Satisfies, Satisfies, Partially Satisfies, or Does Not Satisfy program requirements (see scale below). Institutions whose plans were rated Partially Satisfies or Does Not Satisfy in phase two had until November 30, 2020, to submit a revised plan for additional review by the panel.

As a consequence for those not meeting requirements in Phase 2, as indicated by a Partially Satisfies or Does not Satisfy rating in Table 1 below, these institutions were limited to submitting to the program only new nominations in which the individual self-identified as belonging to one or more of the four designated groups, until the institution’s plan was found, in Phase 3, to meet program requirements. Renewals could continue to be submitted.

Phase 3 review process

Plans submitted to the November 30, 2020, deadline were reviewed by the program to assess whether the external panel’s findings in Phase 2 had been satisfactorily addressed. Results of Phase 3 appear in Table 1 below.

Where plans were found to still not meet requirements, additional consequences have been imposed, in alignment with the program’s Consequences Framework. Institutions with a Partially Satisfies rating in Phase 3 will have the peer review decisions for all their nominations submitted to the program (and, where applicable, their associated funding for chair awards) withheld, until their plan is resubmitted and found to meet the requirements.

Plans and their corresponding annual progress reports can be found on the institutions’ public accountability web pages.

Table 1: Institutional Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan Review Results
Institution Phase 2 Rating Phase 3 Rating March 2021
Acadia University Partially Satisfies Not Yet Available
Brock University Partially Satisfies Satisfies
Carleton University Fully Satisfies  
Concordia University Fully Satisfies  
Dalhousie University Satisfies  
École de technologie supérieure Satisfies  
HEC Montréal Partially Satisfies Satisfies
Institut national de la recherche scientifique Partially Satisfies Satisfies
Lakehead University Satisfies  
Laurentian University Partially Satisfies Conditionally Satisfies
McGill University Satisfies  
McMaster University Satisfies  
Memorial University of Newfoundland Satisfies  
Mount Allison University Satisfies  
Polytechnique Montréal  Satisfies  
Queen’s University Satisfies  
Royal Military College of Canada Partially Satisfies Partially Satisfies
Royal Roads University Satisfies  
Ryerson University Fully Satisfies  
Saint Mary's University Satisfies
Simon Fraser University Fully Satisfies
St. Francis Xavier University Satisfies
The University of British Columbia Satisfies
The University of Winnipeg Fully Satisfies
Trent University Partially Satisfies Partially Satisfies
Université de Moncton Partially Satisfies Conditionally Satisfies
Université de Montréal  Satisfies
Université de Sherbrooke  Fully Satisfies
Université du Québec à Chicoutimi Partially Satisfies Satisfies
Université du Québec à Montréal Partially Satisfies Satisfies
Université du Québec à Rimouski Satisfies
Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières Fully Satisfies
Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue Fully Satisfies
Université du Québec en Outaouais Partially Satisfies Satisfies
Université Laval Partially Satisfies Fully Satisfies
University of Alberta Satisfies
University of Calgary Satisfies
University of Guelph Satisfies
University of Lethbridge Partially Satisfies Satisfies
University of Manitoba Fully Satisfies
University of New Brunswick Satisfies
University of Northern British Columbia Partially Satisfies Conditionally Satisfies
Ontario Tech University Satisfies
University of Ottawa Satisfies
University of Prince Edward Island Partially Satisfies Conditionally Satisfies
University of Regina Satisfies
University of Saskatchewan Fully Satisfies
University of Toronto Satisfies
University of Victoria Fully Satisfies
University of Waterloo Satisfies
University of Windsor Satisfies
Western University Fully Satisfies
Wilfrid Laurier University Satisfies
York University Fully Satisfies
Table 2: Rating Scale used in Formal Review of Institutional Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Action Plans
Exceeds The effectiveness (or expected effectiveness) of the institution’s actions/measures is outstanding. The institution has demonstrated exemplary integration of best practices related to EDI when addressing this criterion. The institution can be seen as an exemplary leader in EDI in the management of its chair allocations.
Fully Satisfies The effectiveness (or expected effectiveness) of the institution’s actions/measures is very strong. The institution demonstrated very strong integration of best practices related to EDI into most aspects of addressing this criterion. The institution can be seen as a very strong leader in EDI in the management of its chair allocations.
Satisfies The effectiveness (or expected effectiveness) of the institution’s actions/measures is strong. The institution demonstrated an overall strong integration of best practices related to EDI into addressing this criterion. The institution can be seen as meeting program requirements with regard to managing their chair allocations.
Conditionally Satisfies Minor changes or clarifications must be made to the plan for it to receive a Satisfies rating.
Partially Satisfies The effectiveness (or expected effectiveness) of the institution’s actions/measures is strong in some respects. The institution demonstrated a solid integration of best practices related to EDI. These were integrated into some aspects of addressing this criterion. Important elements are missing and/or unclear.
Does Not Satisfy The effectiveness (or expected effectiveness) of the institution’s actions/measures is average. The institution demonstrated average to poor integration of best practices related to EDI when addressing this criterion. Important elements are missing and/or unclear.