Nominating institutions and nominees are expected to follow all presentation instructions specified below, to allow reviewers to provide a fair and balanced assessment of the nomination. Any information submitted beyond the limits stated in these instructions will be removed prior to peer review. Review the instructions to reviewers prior to drafting the nomination to better understand the evaluation criteria and how the nomination will be assessed.

Roles

Senior official: The designated senior official who has the authority to sign off on nominations (for example, the provost or vice-president, Research, depending on the institution).

Delegate: The designated employee at the institution whose task is to manage the Canada Research Chairs Program (CRCP). The delegate role is assigned to one person. Should additional delegate roles be required, contact your program officer.

Contributor: Ad hoc invitees to a particular nomination. Their role is to help with the preparation of the nomination.

Nominee: The person who is nominated for a Canada Research Chair.

Section	Senior official	Delegate	Contributor	Nominee
Chairs dashboard	yes	yes	no	no
Application details	yes	yes	view only	yes**
Tier 2 justification	yes	yes	view only	view only
Invitations	yes	yes	no	no
Self-identification form	no	no	no	yes
Socio-economic objectives and fields of research	yes	yes	yes	yes
Keywords	yes	yes	yes	yes
Summary of proposal	yes	yes	yes	yes
Certifications, licences and permits	yes	yes	yes	yes
Referees / letters of reference	yes	yes	view only	no
Suggested reviewers	yes	yes	yes	yes
Reviewer exclusion	yes	yes	yes	yes
Funding tables	yes	yes	yes	yes
CV details	view only	view only	view only	yes
CV documents 1) Publication conventions 2) Significant contributions 3) Research contributions 4) Leadership 5) Training and supervisory experience 6) Other contributions	view only	view only	view only	yes
CV extensions	yes	yes	no	view only
Canada Foundation for Innovation	yes	yes	view only	view only
Supporting documents for nominations and renewals A) For nominations B) For renewals C) For both nominations and renewals D) Job advertisement or transparency statement and mid-point attestation form E) Environmental impact assessment	yes	yes	yes**	yes**
F) Attestation, validation, submission	yes	no	no	no

**Yes: All except the CV extension justification and the job posting / transparency statement.

Chairs dashboard: How to create a nomination

The chairs dashboard allows the senior official and delegate to have an overview of the institutional chair allocation and its use, as well as the flex actions used. The senior official or delegate must nominate the chair to an empty or available allocation that matches the tier and agency of the nominee and their proposed research. An occupied chair allocation becomes available 18 months before its end date for either a new or renewal nomination (if the chair is eligible for renewal*). If the available chair does not match the tier or agency of the nomination, the institution must use its flexibility corridor. The system will automatically adjust the number of flex actions used by the institution. Once a chair is created through the dashboard, it will appear under the Institutional Applications tab.

Third-term nominations

Tier 2 chairs cannot be renewed for a third term. If a researcher resigns from a Canada Research Chair position during their first term at one institution and accepts a Canada Research Chair at another, it is still considered their second term and not a new first term.

Tier 1 chairs cannot be renewed for a third term except in rare exceptional circumstances. In these cases only, institutions may put forward third-term nominations, but must publicly demonstrate the exceptional nature of the nomination. For those exceptional cases where a third term renewal at the Tier 1 level is considered, the institution must contact the CRCP in advance. See the program’s website for additional information and requirements.

Application details

The chair title should be descriptive and should not include symbols or abbreviations. For example, use “and” instead of “&.” The title should also be short and in plain enough language for media to understand and use.

Where possible, and to ensure appropriate peer review of the nomination, accompanying documents should be in the same language as that of the nomination.

For new nominations, the expected start date of the chair must be within 12 months after the anticipated decision date.

Tier 2 justification

The institution must link the nomination to a Tier 2 justification, which is created through the Institutional Application tab. The Tier 2 Justifications must be submitted separately and can be submitted at any time throughout the year.

In cases where a full nomination has been submitted while a decision on the justification is pending, and where the candidate is deemed eligible to apply for a Tier 2 chair, the nomination will be evaluated following the program’s peer review process. If the justification is not accepted, the nomination will be withdrawn from the cycle.

In cases where only the justification is submitted and it is accepted, the institution must then submit a full nomination to one of the program’s regular nomination deadlines within the timeframe provided by the Tri-agency Institutional Programs Secretariat (TIPS).

Invitations

For nominees to access and complete a nomination or renewal, the institution must invite the nominee. The Convergence platform will then send an email to the nominee, who can accept or decline the invitation. Upon accepting the invitation, the nominee will be led through a series of steps to complete their portion of the nomination.

The institution can invite contributors who can assist in the preparation of the nomination.

Senior officials and delegates do not have to be invited as participants, as their roles have already been assigned.

Self-identification form

All candidates for nominations or renewals must complete the self-identification form as part of their acceptance of an invitation.

The CRC’s self-identification will be only viewable by the nominee, and can be updated any time before the nomination is submitted.

Socio-economic objectives and fields of research

The Canadian Research and Development Classification (CRDC) was developed jointly by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and Statistics Canada, which is the custodian. Two fields of research and two socio-economic objectives describing the proposed research program must be selected, and the primary one indicated in both.

Keywords

Provide keywords (minimum of five, maximum of 10) that describe the proposed research program.

Summary of proposal

Provide a summary, written in plain language, describing the uniqueness and importance of the proposed research program. This summary will be used in the chairholder profile and for publicity purposes, and has a maximum character count of 2,500.

Certifications, licences and permits

All research activities must comply with the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research, including but not limited to section 2.4 Agency Requirements for Certain Types of Research. Institutions and nominees should reassure peer reviewers in the “proposed research program” section of their nomination that these requirements will be implemented within the research activities, where appropriate (e.g., research involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada, research involving human pluripotent stem cells, and integration of gender and sex into health research).

Referees / letters of reference

Three reference letters are required before the nomination can be submitted. The senior official or delegate must list the names, institutional affiliations and emails of three individuals who will be providing letters of reference for the nomination.

With the exception of new Tier 2 nominations, for which up to two of the three letters of reference can be “in conflict,” along with at least one “arm’s-length” reference, letters of reference for Canada Research Chair nominations must be from referees who are not in a conflict of interest with the nominee.

The CRCP complies with the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations to ensure effective management of conflict of interest of any participant in the review process.

To instruct referees on how to compose their letters, and to consult the program's conflict of interest policy, refer to the guidelines for reference letters.

The system generates an email to the selected referee with a link and instructions on how to attach their letter. Referees will not have to create a Convergence account. Once the letter is submitted, it cannot be removed or changed. There is no deadline extension for submitting reference letters. Reference letters must be included with the nomination at the time of submission, on the deadline date. No letters will be accepted after the deadline.

Suggested reviewers

The institution is invited to suggest three potential reviewers for the nomination. Suggested reviewers may be from Canada or abroad. Reviewers must not be in a conflict of interest with the nominee. The CRCP complies with the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations to ensure effective management of conflict of interest of any participant in the review process.

To consult the program's conflict of interest policy, see Conflict of Interest.

Reviewer exclusion

Indicate the name and affiliation of reviewers who should not be invited as an external reviewer due to professional or personal conflicts that may potentially bias the evaluation process.

Funding tables

1. Funding from the program: Indicate how the Canada Research Chairs Program funds will be used according to the line items (five years for Tier 2 nominees; seven years for Tier 1 nominees). Actual expenditures may deviate from planned expenditures as long as the program guidelines on the use of funds are respected. This information is requested for information and evaluation purposes for the College assessors, as well as for program administrative and accountability purposes.
2. Funding from the university: Indicate any funds committed in support of the chair by the institution (five years for Tier 2 nominees; seven years for Tier 1 nominees). This information is requested for information and evaluation purposes for the College assessors.
3. Funding from other sources: Indicate any funds committed in support of the chair by sources other than the program or the institution (five years for Tier 2 nominees; seven years for Tier 1 nominees) (e.g., federal government departments and agencies, provincial funding agencies and relevant provincial and territorial departments, charities, non-governmental organizations, industry, and international organizations). In-kind contributions may also be included. Exclude the concurrent or any subsequent application to CFI associated with the nomination; however, include any other CFI investment that supports the chair or the chairholder’s program.

CV details (section to be completed by the nominee)

The CV details section can either be selected from items on the nominee’s profile or can be added directly. It has four main sections:

1. Education:

   List your academic and professional experience, beginning with your most recent.

2. Affiliation and employment

   List your affiliation and employment, beginning with your current or most recent position (academic, research, professional and industrial).

3. Funding history

   List grants and contracts from all sources, including industry and academic research institutions (five years for new and renewal Tier 2 nominees; five years for new Tier 1 nominees; seven years for renewal Tier 1 nominees; in instances of career interruptions and/or special circumstances, your appropriate time limit for this section will be indicated on the Convergence platform).

4. Interruptions and special circumstances

   An important evaluation criterion in the CRCP is the excellence of the nominee. A key factor in assessing this is the research productivity of the individual. TIPS acknowledges that certain circumstances may legitimately affect a nominee’s record of research achievement. Nominees are encouraged to explain any interruptions or other circumstances that have affected their productivity, if applicable, to allow for a fair assessment of their nomination. Reviewers are instructed to give careful consideration and be sensitive to the impacts of these circumstances when assessing a nominee’s research productivity. See the program’s Guidelines for Assessing the Productivity of Nominees for examples of such circumstances and the specific instructions provided to reviewers in relation to them. The information provided within the nomination package is protected under the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations.

   Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on research: NEW guidelines for the research community
   January 7, 2022

CV documents

Nominating institutions and nominees are expected to follow all presentation instructions provided throughout this document, to allow reviewers to provide a fair and balanced assessment of the nomination. Any information submitted beyond the limits stated in these instructions will be removed prior to peer review.

• Review the instructions to reviewers prior to drafting the nomination, to better understand the evaluation criteria and how the nomination will be assessed.
• Indicate the nominee’s name, application ID (e.g., CRC-XXXX-XXXXX) and the page number at the top of each page. All pages in the CV package must be numbered consecutively.
• Use 11-point font or larger, and margins of at least 3/4" (2 cm) all around.
• Ensure text is single-spaced, with a maximum of six lines per inch.
• Subdivide the document according to the sections below (i.e., 1. Significant Contributions; 2. Publication Conventions in the Discipline; 3. Research Contributions, etc.)

All sections outlined below are mandatory.

1. 1) Publication conventions in the discipline (one page maximum)

   Forms of research publications/contributions can vary greatly among disciplines. Given that the nomination may be peer reviewed by an interdisciplinary adjudication committee that includes researchers who may not have direct expertise in the nominee’s field, clearly explain the publication conventions in the nominee’s discipline, to allow informed assessment of the nominee’s research contributions by a variety of experienced researchers.

   Describe:

   • the publication conventions in the nominee’s discipline(s);
   • the choice of venues for the dissemination of the nominee’s research results;
   • the citation conventions for the discipline(s) (e.g., senior author first in multi-authored publications);
   • the publication conventions in the discipline(s) as they relate to students and trainees; and
   • the particularities and/or challenges involved in the publication of interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary research results, if applicable.
2. 2) Significant contributions (five)

   List the five most significant research contributions that the nominee has made during their career. Explain their significance.

3. 3) Research contributions (over same period as in Funding history section)

   Contributions may include: books, chapters of books, articles, monographs, memoirs, special papers, review articles, conference/symposia proceedings and abstracts, patents, copyrights, products, services, technology transfer, creative or artistic works (including individual or collective literary or artistic works, such as novels, short stories, poetry, films, videos, visual art, booklets, records, sound creation, collections, exhibition catalogues, etc.), government publications, book reviews by the nominee or published reviews of their work, research reports, papers presented at scholarly meetings or conferences, and other forms of written scholarly expression or participation in public discourse and debate that constitute a contribution to research.

   • For published contributions, provide complete bibliographic notices (including co-authors, title, publisher, name of publication, volume, date of publication, number of pages, etc.) as they appear in the original publication.
   • For multi-authored publications, identify any students and trainees that the nominee supervised by underlining their names. Specify the nominee’s role in co-authored publications, and indicate the percentage of the nominee’s contribution to the team effort.
   • For written works accepted for publication or in press, indicate the name of the publication, date of acceptance, and number of pages, and append the letter of acceptance to the nomination in the annex. For publications submitted, or revised and submitted, indicate the name of the publication to which they were submitted, date of submission, number of pages and, if available, the manuscript numbers.
   • For publications in languages other than French or English, provide a translation of the title, and the name of the publication.
   • For new Tier 2s, list your theses.

   Do not include published contributions that are in preparation.

   Group the nominee’s research contributions by category in the following order, with the most recent contributions listed first:

   1. Published refereed contributions, such as: books (where applicable, subdivide according to those that are single-authored, co-authored and edited works), monographs, book chapters, and articles in scholarly refereed journals. “Refereed contributions” assumes assessment of the work in its entirety—not merely of an abstract or extract—before publication, and by appropriately independent, anonymous and qualified experts (i.e., assessors who are at arm’s length from the author).
   2. Other refereed contributions, such as: conference proceedings, papers presented at scholarly meetings or conferences, articles in professional or trade journals, government publications, etc.
   3. Non-refereed contributions, such as: book reviews, published reviews of your work, research reports, policy papers, public lectures, creative works, papers in conference proceedings, specialized publications, technical reports, internal reports, discussions, abstracts, symposium records, monographs, books or book chapters, conference presentations, government publications, etc.
   4. Forthcoming contributions: Indicate one of the following statuses: “submitted,” “revised and submitted,” “accepted” or “in press.” Provide the name of the journal or book publisher, and the number of pages.
   5. Creative outputs: List your most recent and significant achievements (if applicable), grouping them by category. Creative outputs will be evaluated according to established disciplinary standards, as well as creative and/or artistic merit. Creative outputs may include, e.g., exhibitions, performances, publications, presentations, film, video, audio recordings, etc. If applicable, you may include website links (though TIPS cannot guarantee links will be accessed). If including a website link, follow these instructions:
      • Provide the complete and exact URL, and indicate the path to access the intended support material on the website.
      • Include a list of up to three works or excerpts of works to which you would like to direct the reviewers (e.g., images, audio, video, written material, etc.). Provide titles, dates of creation/production, and a brief context for the works presented.
      • Ensure that the website and all links involved will be operational up to six months after the application deadline.
      • Specify the browser and version that should be used.

      Note: TIPS assumes no responsibility in cases where links provided are broken or the server is unavailable during the adjudication period.

4. 4) Leadership

   Provide evidence of international leadership (Tier 1), or of the potential to become an international leader in the field in the next five to 10 years (Tier 2).

   • Describe (if applicable, based on the nominee’s career stage) any involvement in broader intellectual leadership activities, such as stewardship of initiatives at a national or international level that have had an influence or impact that extends beyond the nominee’s own institution.
   • If applicable, describe how the nominee has improved the institution's ability to leverage additional research resources (including financial and non-financial resources).
5. 5) Training and Supervisory Experience
   • Describe, if applicable, the nominee’s role in training students (e.g., doctoral, master’s, undergraduate) and other trainees.
   • Describe the nominee’s role in supervising or co-supervising ongoing and/or completed theses at the doctoral, master’s and/or undergraduate level.
   • Describe the steps the nominee has taken to involve students (e.g., doctoral, master’s, undergraduate) in their research activities.
   • Specify if the nominee’s opportunities for such contributions have been limited because the institution does not have graduate degree programs in their field or discipline. Describe any proactive strategies undertaken to make contributions to student training despite these challenges.
6. 6) Other Contributions

   Describe other activities that show the impact of the nominee’s work, such as awards; contributions to scientific peer review (membership on peer review committees, external reviews, etc.); consulting; contributions to professional practice or public policy; membership on committees, boards, or policy-making bodies with government or the private sector.

CV extensions

Extend these sections of the CV according to the length of the leave, rounded up to the closest full year. For example, a new Tier 2 nominee who had an 18-month leave can extend their CV from the mandatory five years to seven years. 

The extension may be applied to more than one eligible leave period. For example, a Tier 2 nominee who had a six month leave in 2014 and an eight month leave in 2015 can extend their CV from the mandatory five years to seven years.

Extension of a CV may be considered for accommodating situations where, for legitimate reasons, the nominee could not or did not take a formal leave. For example, the candidate had a prolonged period of unemployment or mandatory military service.

Canada Foundation for Innovation

Institutions may include a request for infrastructure support from the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) with their chair nomination, through the CFI’s John R. Evans Leaders Fund. Program staff will append the CFI request to the chair nomination after it is submitted.

Supporting documents for nominations and renewals

All elements listed are mandatory. A detailed description of each element is provided below.

Overview

• A) For nominations:
  1. Quality of Nominee
  2. Description of Proposed Research Program
• B) For renewals:
  1. Performance Report
  2. Description of Proposed Research Program
• C) For nominations and renewals:
  3. Quality of the Institutional Environment, Institutional Commitment, and Fit of Proposed Chair with Institution’s Strategic Research Plan

Instructions for presenting supporting documents

Nominating institutions and nominees are expected to follow all presentation instructions, to allow reviewers to provide a fair and balanced assessment of the nomination. Any information submitted beyond the limits stated in these instructions will be removed prior to peer review.

• Indicate the nominee’s name, application ID (e.g., CRC-XXXX-XXXXX) and the page number at the top of each page. All pages in the nomination package must be numbered consecutively.
• Use 11-point font or larger, and margins of at least 3/4" (2 cm) all around.
• Ensure text is single-spaced, with a maximum of six lines per inch.
• Subdivide the document according to the sections below (e.g., Quality of Nominee, Description of Proposed Research Program, etc.).

Note on interdisciplinary adjudication: The nomination will be peer reviewed by a minimum of three expert reviewers in the field of the proposed research program. It may also be peer reviewed by an interdisciplinary adjudication committee composed of researchers with expertise in various disciplines within the health sciences, natural sciences, engineering, social sciences and humanities. Due to the possibility of interdisciplinary adjudication, the proposed research program must be clearly described to allow informed assessment by researchers who may not have direct expertise in the area. Avoid jargon, acronyms and highly technical terms, where possible.

A) For nominations

1. Quality of Nominee (maximum one page)

The institution must clearly demonstrate that the nominee is:

• recognized internationally as an outstanding and innovative world-class researcher whose accomplishments have had a major impact in their field (Tier 1); and
• an excellent emerging researcher of world-class calibre who has demonstrated particular research creativity and the potential to achieve international recognition in their field within the next five to ten years (Tier 2).

2. Description of Proposed Research Program (maximum six pages, excluding the summary and list of references)

In clear, plain, non-specialist language, the institution must clearly demonstrate that the nominee is proposing an original and innovative research program of the highest quality (Tier 1) or of high quality (Tier 2).

a) Executive summary (maximum 100 words)

Briefly state the explicit objectives of the proposed research program.

b) Context

• Explain what makes the research program original, innovative and of the highest quality (Tier 1), or what makes the research program original, innovative and of high quality (Tier 2).
• Situate the proposed research within the context of the relevant scholarly literature.
• Explain the relationship and relevance of the proposed research to the nominee’s ongoing research.
• If the proposed research program represents a significant change of direction from the nominee’s previous research, describe how the proposed program relates to experiences and insights gained from earlier research achievements, and, if applicable, how the nominee will secure the appropriate level of expertise needed (e.g., through collaboration) to successfully implement the proposal.
• Explain the anticipated contribution of the research program to the existing body of knowledge in the area of research.
• Describe the theoretical approach or framework, if applicable.
• Demonstrate how the proposed research will contribute to attainment of the research objectives as outlined within the institution’s strategic research plan.

c) Methodology

• Describe the proposed research strategies and key activities, including methodological approaches and procedures for data collection and analysis, that will be used to achieve the stated objectives.
• Justify the choice of methodology.

d) Engagement with research users and communication of results

• Describe, if applicable, how research users (e.g., media, academics, industry, government, not-for-profit and private sector organizations, practitioners, policy-makers, educators, artistic and cultural communities, etc.) will be engaged during the various stages of the research program (e.g., conception/design, implementation, communication of results, etc.).
• Describe how the research results will be disseminated (e.g., conferences; peer reviewed publications, monographs and books; copyrights, patents, products and services; technology transfer; creative or artistic works; etc.).

e) Description of proposed training strategies

• Describe the training strategies that have been and will be used to attract excellent students (e.g., doctoral, master’s, undergraduate) and trainees to the institution or affiliated institutions, hospitals, institutes.
• Describe how an environment that attracts, develops and retains excellent students and trainees has been or will be created.
• Describe the specific roles and responsibilities of students and trainees. Indicate the duties, especially with respect to research, they will be undertaking, and how these will complement their academic training and develop their research expertise.

f) List of references (maximum three pages)

Attach a list of all references cited in the proposed research program. This is in addition to the six pages allowed for the description of the proposed research program.

B) For renewals

1. Performance Report (maximum six pages, excluding executive summary)

In clear, plain, non-specialist language, the institution must clearly demonstrate how the nominee has achieved the objectives set out in the original nomination, that they have upheld the standards of excellence of the program, and what the added value has been to the nominee of holding a Canada Research Chair.

a) Executive summary (maximum 100 words)

Highlight the major accomplishments achieved by the chair during the previous term.

b) Quality of the chair

Demonstrate that the nominee continues to distinguish themself as an outstanding, world-class researcher (Tier 1); or that they are developing into an outstanding researcher of world-class calibre who is poised to become a leader in their field (Tier 2).

c) Research program

• Describe how the nominee has achieved the goals of the original research program.
• Describe how the nominee has carried out a research program that is producing leading-edge results that are having a significant impact at the international level (Tier 1); or how the nominee has carried out a research program that has produced important results that are having a significant impact in the field (Tier 2).

d) Engagement with research users and communication of results

• If applicable, describe how the nominee has engaged with research users (e.g., media, academics, industry, government, not-for-profit and private sector organizations, practitioners, policy-makers, educators, artistic and cultural communities, etc.) during the various stages of their research program (e.g., conception/design of research program, implementation of research program, communication of results, etc.).
• Describe how the nominee has disseminated their research results during their previous term (e.g., conferences; peer reviewed publications, monographs and books; copyrights, patents, products and services; technology transfer; creative or artistic works, etc.).
• Explain how these research results have had a significant impact in their field.

e) Description of training strategies

• Describe the training strategies used by the chair to attract excellent students (doctoral, master’s, undergraduate) and trainees to the institution or affiliated institutes.
• Describe how the chair has encouraged these student and trainees to develop their research expertise.
• Describe how the chair has created an environment that attracts, develops and retains excellent students and trainees.

f) Integration with the institution's strategic research plan

• Describe any impacts of the nominee’s research that support the institution's strategic research plan.
• Describe how the nominee has helped build relationships with other research initiatives in Canada and abroad.
• If applicable, describe how the nominee has improved the institution's ability to leverage additional research resources, including financial and non-financial.

2. Description of Proposed Research Program (maximum six pages, excluding summary and list of references)

In clear, plain, non-specialist language, the institution must clearly demonstrate that the nominee is proposing an original and innovative research program of the highest quality (Tier 1) or of high quality (Tier 2).

a) Executive summary (maximum 100 words)

• Briefly state the explicit objectives of the proposed research program.
• Briefly state the major accomplishments the nominee plans to achieve in a subsequent term as a Canada Research Chair.

b) Context

• Explain what makes the research program original, innovative and of the highest quality (Tier 1), or what makes the research program original, innovative and of high quality (Tier 2).
• Situate the proposed research within the context of the relevant scholarly literature.
• Explain the relationship and relevance of the proposed research to the nominee’s ongoing research.
• If the proposed research program represents a significant change of direction from the nominee’s previous research, describe how the proposed program relates to experiences and insights gained from earlier research achievements, and, if applicable, how the nominee will secure the appropriate level of expertise needed (e.g., through collaboration) to successfully implement the proposal.
• Explain the anticipated contribution of the research program to the existing body of knowledge in the area of research.
• Describe the theoretical approach or framework, if applicable.
• Demonstrate how the proposed research will contribute to attainment of the research objectives as outlined within the institution’s strategic research plan.

c) Methodology

• Describe the proposed research strategies and key activities, including methodological approaches and procedures for data collection and analysis, that will be used to achieve the stated objectives.
• Justify the choice of methodology.

d) Engagement with research users and communication of results

• Describe, if applicable, how research users (e.g., media, academics, industry, government, not-for-profit and private sector organizations, practitioners, policy-makers, educators, artistic and cultural communities, etc.) will be engaged during the various stages of the research program (e.g., conception/design, implementation, communication of results, etc.).
• Describe how the research results will be disseminated (e.g., conferences; peer reviewed publications, monographs and books; copyrights, patents, products and services; technology transfer; creative or artistic works; etc.).

e) Description of proposed training strategies

• Describe the training strategies that have been and will be used to attract excellent students (doctoral, master’s, undergraduate) and trainees to the institution or affiliated institutions, hospitals, institutes.
• Describe how an environment that attracts, develops and retains excellent students and trainees has been or will be created.
• Describe the specific roles and responsibilities of students and trainees. Indicate the duties, especially with respect to research, they will be undertaking, and how these will complement their academic training and develop their research expertise.

f) List of references (maximum three pages)

• Attach a list of all references cited in the proposed research program. This is in addition to the six pages allowed for the description of the proposed research program.

C) For both nominations and renewals

In addition to the supporting documents listed above in A) 1. and 2. (For nominations) and B) 1. and 2. (For renewals):

3. Quality of the Institutional Environment, Institutional Commitment, and Fit of Proposed Chair with Institution’s Strategic Research Plan (maximum six pages)

The institution must clearly describe/demonstrate the following:

a) Institutional environment:

• the quality of the existing or planned institutional environment for the proposed chair;
• according to the nominee’s career stage, any opportunities for collaboration with other researchers working in the same or related fields at the current institution and/or the nominating institution (as applicable), in the same region, within Canada or abroad; and
• according to the nominee’s career stage, any opportunities for attracting additional resources, including financial and non-financial resources.

b) Institutional commitment:

• the non-financial support the institution and any affiliated postsecondary institutions, hospitals or institutes will provide the chairholder to ensure the success of their work, such as protected time for research (e.g., release from teaching and/or administrative duties), mentoring, office space, administrative support, hiring of other faculty members, etc.;
• the total approximate amount of funding estimated to be needed per year to implement the proposed research program over the term of the chair (seven years for Tier 1; five years for Tier 2);
• as a complement to the budget pages in the nomination form, how much of the necessary research funding is already secured versus that which is outstanding or will be applied for;
• strategy for how any outstanding funding, if applicable, will be secured;
• the financial support the institution and any affiliated institutions, hospitals or institutes will provide to the chairholder;
• any mitigation and monitoring strategies the institution will use to ensure the nominee has the resources (both financial and non-financial) needed to implement a program at the level expected of a Canada Research Chair (this is especially important for foreign chairholders who may be less familiar with the Canadian research funding system); and
• how both the financial and non-financial commitments made by the institution differ from those provided for regular faculty members.

c) Fit of the proposed chair with the institution’s strategic research plan:

• the importance of the chair to the institution’s strategic research development, and, if applicable, to its affiliated institutions, hospitals, institutes;
• how the proposed chair will contribute to attainment of the institution’s objectives, as outlined in its strategic research plan; and
• if applicable, how the nominee has helped build relationships with other research initiatives in Canada and abroad.

D) Job Advertisement or Transparency Statement

For all new nominations, upload the job posting or transparency statement and the mid-point attestation form leading to the present nomination. See Requirements for recruiting and nominating Canada Research Chairs for more information.

E) Environmental Impact Assessment

In the Certifications, Licences and Permits sections, institutions and nominees must review the Environmental Information form (PDF, Appendix A) and determine if any of the situations listed in Part II apply to the proposed research. If the answer is “yes” to at least one of the four questions in Part II, they must complete Appendix A and submit it. If none of the situations apply to the proposed research activities, no Appendix A is required.

F) Attestation, Validation, Submission

Only the senior official has access to this module. The senior official must answer a set of questions related to the recruitment of the nominee. They will then validate the information and submit the nomination.