Purpose

To review proposals for new undergraduate and graduate programs from Ontario’s publicly assisted universities and make recommendations regarding their approval to the Ontario Universities Council of Quality Assurance (Quality Council).

Members

There will be at least eight voting members on the Committee including the Chair, at any given time. Members represent a range of academic disciplines, including at least one member from an accredited program. At least two members will be bilingual.

The Executive Director, Quality Assurance, is a non-voting ex-officio member. The operations of the Appraisal Committee are managed by the Quality Assurance Secretariat.

Eligibility criteria

• senior academics who possess current experience in the development, delivery and quality assessment of both graduate and undergraduate programs (experience on Senate – or equivalent – and / or on one of its major committees responsible for quality assurance would be an asset)
• cannot be voting members of the Quality Council

Term of Appointment

Subject to the recommendation of the Quality Council, members are normally appointed for a three-year term, and may be reappointed.

Quorum

Quorum at meetings of the Appraisal Committee is 50% plus one of the eligible voting members. If a member is not voting because of a conflict of interest, the determination of what constitutes quorum will not include that member. The Chair shall have a vote.

Chair and Vice-Chair of Committee

The Quality Council appoints the Chair and Vice‑Chair of the Committee. The Chair of the Appraisal Committee also serves as a non‑voting, ex officio member of the Quality Council to act as a resource.

Process of Soliciting Names and Selecting Members

Vice-Presidents Academic at Ontario universities will be invited to submit nominations from their institution including details of the rationale for the nomination and a copy of the CV of faculty members who have agreed to be nominees. Nominations are solicited using an algorithm that assures that membership rotates amongst all of the publicly assisted universities. Under this system the Secretariat would solicit nominations only from the institutions identified by the algorithm to provide the next members.

The Quality Council will review all nominations and from those nominated make appointments to the Appraisal Committee.

Support for the Appraisal Committee

The Quality Assurance Secretariat will be responsible for organizing meetings, preparing agendas and meeting materials, taking minutes of meetings and communicating decisions of the Appraisal Committee to the universities and the Quality Council.

Duties and Responsibilities

1. Upon appointment, members will participate in an onboarding session to provide an orientation to the work of the Appraisal Committee. The session is convened by the Quality Assurance Secretariat and the Chair of the Appraisal Committee.
2. Members are expected to be available to participate in the majority of scheduled monthly Appraisal Committee meetings. Meetings are normally held virtually, with one to two meetings per year convened in person at the Council of Ontario Universities’ office in Toronto. The meeting schedule is posted on the Quality Council website.
3. The Appraisal Committee reviews submissions received from Ontario’s publicly assisted universities. These include new undergraduate and graduate program proposals and follow‑up reports, reviewed under the Protocol for New Program Approvals; and, proposals for new for‑credit graduate diplomas, major modifications, and other submissions eligible for consideration under the Protocol for Expedited Approvals.
   For each submission, members focus on assessing alignment with the Quality Assurance Framework and applicable evaluation criteria, exercising independent academic judgment while respecting institutional autonomy.
   Members are responsible for applying the Quality Assurance Framework and associated protocols consistently and fairly across submissions and institutions.
4. Committee members are assigned in pairs as lead reviewers for specific submissions. Assignments are provided in advance of meetings to allow adequate time for review. Lead reviewers conduct a preliminary evaluation using Committee-approved review templates, focusing on the quality of external review reports and recommendations (where applicable), institutional responses to external review recommendations, curriculum alignment among proposed courses, program level learning outcomes and Degree Level Expectations, assessment of teaching and learning, plans to monitor continuous improvement, and available resources.
5. Lead reviewers are expected to submit completed lead reviewer reports in advance of Committee meetings, in accordance with the agreed timelines. Reports may recommend requesting additional information from the university, proposing a meeting with institutional representatives, or proceeding to decision or recommendation. All requests for additional information must be accompanied by a clear rationale linked to Framework requirements.
6. During Appraisal Committee meetings, lead reviewers present their findings for each assigned submission. Discussion is conducted on a submission‑by‑submission basis, and members collectively consider the evidence presented before reaching decisions or recommendations.
7. Following discussion, the Committee deliberates collectively to: formulate recommendations to the Quality Council for submissions reviewed under the Protocol for New Program Approvals, including recommendations for approval, approval with report, deferral, or non‑approval; and, renders final approval decisions for submissions reviewed under the Protocol for Expedited Approvals, within the authority delegated to the Appraisal Committee.
8. Members must declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest, including affiliation with the proposing institution. Members with a conflict of interest are recused from discussion and decision‑making on the affected submission. The Chair, in consultation with the Secretariat, provides guidance on conflict‑of‑interest matters as needed.
9. Members shall maintain the confidentiality of submissions, deliberations, reports, and decisions, and shall use Committee materials solely for the purpose of fulfilling their Appraisal Committee responsibilities.
10. Where appropriate, members may identify emerging issues or exemplary practices to assist the Quality Council and the Secretariat in supporting continuous improvement of quality assurance practices across the sector.
11. Occasionally, and on an as needed basis, Appraisal Committee members may be invited to participate on working groups, struck by the Quality Council or by the Appraisal Committee itself, for the purpose of exploring in detail particular issues related to the work of the Council and / or the Committee.