If your research involves human participants or animals

Waterloo statement on animal researchHow to apply for ACC approval

Failing to meet agency policy requirements or, to comply with relevant policies, laws or regulations, for the conduct of certain types of research activities; failing to obtain appropriate approvals, permits or certifications before conducting these activities. Tri-agency Framework: RCR

Research facility required to be registered

4. (1) No person shall commence or continue to operate a research facility unless the research facility is registered under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. A.22, s. 4 (1).

Animals in Research Act

The Institution agrees to participate in the CCAC's Program, which includes regular assessments, and hold a valid Certificate of GAP – Good Animal Practice confirming that it is in compliance with the CCAC's guidelines and policies. 

Guidelines for annual renewals

Renewal process

CCAC Terms of Reference for Animal Care Committees

Review all protocols annually (i.e., within a year of commencement of the project)

Modification process

CCAC Terms of Reference for ACC

CCAC Terms of Reference for ACC

Standard operating procedures and institutional animal care and use policies; SOP review may be delegated to ACC members with the appropriate expertise, but SOPs should be accessible to all ACC members, and the full ACC should review all SOPs that involve procedures that may result in deleterious effects to animal health or welfare.

Waterloo Statement on Human Participant Research

Under the auspices of Waterloo

Who needs to complete an application

Definition of research and participant

What requires ethics review

Decision Tree

Research integrity – frequently asked questions

TCPS2 (2018)

Article 2.1 The following requires ethics review and approval by an REB before the research commences:

• research involving living human participants;
• research involving human biological materials, as well as human embryos, fetuses, fetal tissue, reproductive materials and stem cells. This applies to materials derived from living and deceased individuals;
• a determination that research is the intended purpose of the undertaking is key for differentiating activities that require ethics review by an REB and those that do not (see Article 2.5). Choice of methodology and/or intent or ability to publish findings are not factors that determine whether or not an activity is research requiring ethics review;
• “human participants” (referred to as “participants”) are those individuals whose data, or responses to interventions, stimuli or questions by the researcher, are relevant to answering the research question

Human data collection which does NOT require ethics review

Article 2.2 Research that relies exclusively on publicly available information does not require REB review when:

• the information is legally accessible to the public and appropriately protected by law; OR
• the information is publicly accessible and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy;
• research involving the observation of people in public places where it does not involve any intervention staged by the researcher, or direct interaction with the individuals or groups;
• individuals or groups targeted for observation have no reasonable expectation of privacy; and any dissemination of research results does not allow identification of specific individuals;
• research that relies exclusively on secondary use of anonymous information, or anonymous human biological materials, so long as the process of data linkage or recording or dissemination of results does not generate identifiable information;
• Quality assurance and quality improvement studies, program evaluation activities, and performance reviews, or testing within normal educational requirements when used exclusively for assessment, management or improvement purposes, and do not fall within the scope of REB review;
• Creative practice activities, in and of themselves, do not require REB review. However, research that employs creative practice to obtain responses from participants that will be analyzed to answer a research question is subject to REB review TCPS2 (2018)

Article 2.8 Following initial REB review and approval, research ethics review shall continue throughout the life of the project in accordance with Article 6.14 TCPS2 (2018)

Modification Process or Incidental Findings Process

Article 3.3 Consent shall be maintained throughout the research project. Researchers have an ongoing duty to provide participants with all information relevant to their ongoing consent to participate in the research.

Article 3.4Researchers have an obligation to disclose to the participant any material incidental findings discovered in the course of research. TCPS2 (2018)

• Wilfrid Laurier University
• Western University
• Conestoga College
• local hospitals