Humans in Research

New: Ethics submission and review process is NOW on line!

Research involving human participants conducted by faculty members and graduate students under the auspices of the University of Toronto must be reviewed and approved by a University of Toronto Research Ethics Board (REB) prior to its commencement.

All of the Toronto Academic Health Sciences Network (TAHSN) hospitals have their own, independent REBs. All hospital-based reseaarchers must submit human participant research protocols to their respective hospital REB for review, and to the REBs of all hospitals involved in the research. For hospital-based projects where U of T plays a role, please see Administrative Review, below.

Consults and Training Requirements


WE offer one-to-one or group ethics consultations for researchers, study staff, and students prior to and throughout the ethics review process to assist in the development and conduct of ethically sound research protocols, providing advice in accordance with federal, provincial and institutional requirements and best practices. Consultations are also offered for community agencies and their researchers who have partnered with the University and for which the University REB is the REB of record.

Please email well in advance of your intended REB submission due date to schedule a meeting date and time.

Full Board and Delegated Review

The default review process is full review, where a protocol is brought to a monthly REB meeting and reviewed by the entire board. The delegated (formerly known as expedited) review process involves review conducted by a subcommittee of the board. Determination of whether to submit through the full board or delegated review process involves evaluating the risk of the project.

The main criterion that is used to determine whether a protocol may be reviewed through the delegated process is risk. Only research that meets the threshold of minimal risk may be delegated. Minimal risk is defined as,

“The probability and magnitude of possible harms implied by participation in the research can reasonably be expected by participants to be no greater than those encountered by the subject in those aspects of his or her everyday life that relate to the research, or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests.”

To evaluate risk for this protocol, consider:

  • Group vulnerability i.e., any pre-existing vulnerabilities associated with proposed participant groups, e.g., relating to pre-existing physiological or health conditions, cognitive or emotional factors, and socio-economic or legal status.
  • Research risk i.e., the probability and magnitude of harms participants may experience as a result of the proposed methods to be used and types of data to be collected, e.g., relating to physiological or health issues such as clinical diagnoses or side effects, cognitive or emotional factors such as stress or anxiety during data collection, and socio-economic or legal ramifications such as stigma, loss of employment, deportation, or criminal investigation (e.g., in the event of duty to report intent to cause serious harm, subpoena, or breach of confidentiality).

Please consider overall assessments of group vulnerability and research risk (i.e., low, medium, high) and locate the protocol in the matrix , below.

Risk Matrix
Group Vulnerability Research Risk
Low Medium High
Low Delegated Delegated Full
Medium Delegated Full Full
High Full Full Full

Other factors that may escalate a protocol to full board may include the use of clinical tests or evaluations, research complexity and large participant population.

Submission process

Please submit through My Research Human Protocol (MRHP)

Submission Deadlines

The deadline for delegated review is every Monday (or first business day of the week) by 4 pm.

Submission due dates for full board are determined by the respective REB. Please submit your protocol well in advance of your intended start date.

Submission Guidelines

Ethics review submissions should normally not include thesis proposals or, journal articles.

Applicants are advised to refer to the Guide for Informed Consent Documents when preparing information and consent letters/forms.

Each cycle through the delegated review process (i.e. initial review or review of revisions) takes approximately 4-5 weeks to complete from the date the study was sent to the reviewer. The overall duration of a given review will depend on how many rounds of revision are required.

Several guidelines have been created to assist researchers in development of ethics protocols that deal with specific disciplines or methodologies (e.g. participant observation, use of deception and debriefing) and general topics (e.g. compensation).

All research to be conducted in schools must have administrative consent/permission prior to recruitment. Some school boards, including the Toronto District School Board, require protocol review by their Research Committee before gaining administrative permission. Please contact the school board to be involved with your research for further information.

Continuing Ethics Review

Ethics approvals are valid for up to one year and only cover research conducted as described in the ethics protocol.

Annual Renewal and Study Completion

Researchers wanting to continue with a project beyond the expiry date of their current ethics approval are required to submit a Renewal. This may be done up to 4-6 times, for a total of 7 years of approval of a protocol.

If the study is to continue beyond 7 years, a new protocol must be submitted for review..

Once the objectives of the study have been met (data collection and primary analysis completed), the study may be closed. This requires the submission of a Protocol Completion Report..

Review and approval of Renewals and Protocol Completion Reports take normally 2 weeks. As expiry of ethics approval may affect the status of funding, it is advised that these documents be submitted well in advance of ethics expiry dates.

Post-Approval Review Visits

All currently active REB-approved protocols are eligible to be selected for a Post-Approval Review (PAR) visit. This program has been developed as part of the University of Toronto’s commitment to maintaining the highest ethical standards in research. PAR site visits are intended to be collegial and educational to actively promote awareness of the ethical and regulatory requirements governing human research while facilitating compliance with the REB-approved ethics protocol.


Any proposed changes to an approved research project requires submission of an Amendment.

Definition of Amendment

An amendment is a written description of (a) change(s) to an ongoing, currently approved protocol. Amendments include any change to the study documents that affect scholarly intent, study design or human participant protection. Rationale for this/these change (s) should also be provided. Minor variations to protocols are acceptable without the need for submission of an amendment. These changes should be addressed in the annual renewal or study completion form.

Any change to the protocol that alters the risk to participants, regardless of whether that change increases or decreases risk, requires an amendment. Amendments may include (but are not limited to):

  • Study title
  • Recruitment methods or materials
  • Research personnel
  • Location of the research
  • Length of study or intervention if risk level changes
  • Participant population, inclusion or exclusion criteria
  • Privacy issues and/or the nature of the information being collected (e.g. adding data that in combination with existing information could potentially identify participants) or confidentiality of participants
  • Data management plan – change in storage, retention or destruction – physical and electronic safeguards or personnel with access
  • Informed consent forms (unless only minor wording), procedures, new findings or information (Note: changes identified in aforementioned aspects may require changes to information sheets, consent forms and recruitment materials)
  • Compensation
  • Conflicts of interests
  • Funding source(s)
  • Change(s) of other institutional REB or administration approval, including additions or removals


Protocol Deviations and Adverse Events

Researchers must report unplanned deviations and adverse or unanticipated events that occur to participants in the course of the research process as soon as possible. If the unplanned deviation is to continue, or the adverse event leads to a change in the protocol, an amendment should be submitted as well.


Please see our FAQs for additional information.

International Research

If research is to be conducted or funded by another country, it is important to understand the legal and ethical requirements of that country.

Under the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Human Subjects Protection Regulations §45 C.F.R.46.103 (The Common Rule), every institution engaged in human subject research supported or conducted by the DHHS, i.e. NIH-sponsored research, must obtain an assurance of compliance approved by the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP).

U of T holds a Federal-Wide Assurance, which will cover all DHHS-supported research projects that have undergone ethics review at the University. Our Assurance is coded: FWA00005463 – U Toronto. For any questions regarding the use of the FWA or NIH funding, please contact Krista Montgomery at 978-2155 or

Under the FWA, all investigators submitting for DHHS-supported agency grants or contracts require education on the protection of human subjects in research. Assurance that an appropriate course has been taken is needed for all renewals and new applications once a decision on funding has been reached by the agency (in other words, no course – no funds). This includes the principal investigator(s), key personnel and subcontractors. Two online courses are recognized by the University of Toronto as fulfilling this responsibility. One is the newly-available “Introductory Tutorial for the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans”, which is available through the Interagency Panel on Research Ethics, available The other is the NIH-supported “Protection of Human Research Subjects: Computer-Based Training for Researchers” which is available at We recommend the TCPS tutorial, as it educates researchers on Canadian guidelines, which is more applicable to University policies. Both courses are recommended for all researchers, students and REB members to take, as they provide a good foundation for ethical conduct in human subject research.

According to Article 8.3 (b) of the TCPS, “Research conducted under the auspices of a Canadian research institution and conducted outside of its jurisdiction, whether elsewhere in Canada, or outside Canada, shall undergo prior research ethics review by both: i. the REB at the Canadian institution under the auspices of which the research is being conducted; and ii. the REB or other responsible review body or bodies, if any, at the research site.”

It is therefore necessary for researchers conducting studies in countries with ethics review procedures to submit to an REB-equivalent in that country. If research is to be conducted in a country without such resources, or in regions where government knowledge of the project would jeopardize the research and/or where human rights violations are commonplace, documentation from a non-government agency or expert on the cultural appropriateness of the research is helpful, when available.

Course-based Research

Course-based research involving human participants is a valuable part of students’ research experience. Course-based research may include undergraduate student-initiated projects, and undergraduate or graduate course template protocols. It is vital that such projects be designed and conducted with the same level of professionalism as graduate and faculty research.

The University is responsible for reviewing all course-based research involving human participants. Ethics review of these projects must adhere to the principles outlined in the (TCPS2). It is the responsibility of both the student and the supervisor/instructor to understand and comply with federal and University policies governing research involving humans and to submit an ethics protocol.

If you are an undergraduate or graduate course instructor with an assignment that involves human participants, you will need to submit a course template for review. If you are an undergraduate student conducting an independent research project for a course, you and your supervisor will need to submit an undergraduate ethics review application.

The process for submission and review depends on whether your department or faculty has a Delegated Ethics Review Committee (DERC) to review course-based protocols.

The DERC list and contact information are below. If your department or faculty has a DERC, please submit to them directly, using the appropriate form.

If your department or faculty does NOT have a DERC, please create and submit your protocol through MRHP.

Please note, course-based research reviewed through a DERC must be minimal risk. In exceptional circumstances if a unit supports higher risk course-based research, protocols must be submitted for ethics review through the appropriate Research Ethics Board (REB).

Delegated Ethics Review Committees by Campus

Find the appropriate contact by campus and department/faculty below.


Department/Faculty (course prefixes)

Departmental/Faculty Contact

St. George Campus Anthropology (ANT) Shawn Lehman
Engineering (AER, APS, BME, CHE, CIV, ECE, MIE, MSE) Jose Zariffa
Environmental Studies (ENV) David Powell
Geography (GGR) Naomi Adiv, Neera Singhn,
Linguistics (LIN)

Suzi Oliveira de Lima

Management (MGT) Claire Tsai, Chenbo Zhong,
Pharmacy (PHM, PHC) Paul Grootendorst
Kinesiology and Physical Education (KPE) Luc Tremblay, Kristina Ognjanovic,
Psychology (PSY) Daphna Buchsbaum, Jason Plaks,
Sociology (SOC)

Sherri Klassen, Bill Magee,

University of Toronto Mississauga (UTM) All UTM departments Rong Wu
University of Toronto Scarborough (UTSC) Anthropology and Health Studies Michelle Silver, Donna Young,
Centre for Critical Development Studies and Geography Sharlene Mollett, Ryan Isakson
Centre for French and Linguistics Philip Monahan

Kosha Bramesfeld, Jon Cant,

Sociology Josh Harold

Download the Annual DERC Report for Course-Based Protocols spreadsheet .

Faculty and students conducting course-based research requiring ethics review in any units not listed here, should submit a protocol through MRHP.

Administrative Review

Research that occurs solely at a Toronto Academic Health Sciences Network (TAHSN) hospital needs only to be reviewed at the hospital, and, similarly, research that occurs solely at the University needs only to be reviewed at the University. However, in some circumstances, hospital-based human research may involve the University in some capacity. For hospital-based research that involves the University, administrative review through ROCO-HREP may be conducted in lieu of REB review.

For administrative review, please use MRHP and include in the application:

  • Approved TAHSN Human Subjects Research Ethics Application form
  • Approved research protocol
  • All appendices
  • REB (of record) approval letter

Quality Assurance Projects

According to TCPS, Article 2.5, “Quality Assurance and quality improvement (QA/QI) studies, program evaluation activities, and performance reviews, or testing within normal educational requirements when used exclusively for assessment, management or improvement purposes, do not constitute research… and do not fall within the scope of REB review.’”

However, many projects that fall within the category of QA/QI or program evaluation may contain an element of research, necessitating REB review. In many cases, such activities may involve identifiable and sensitive personal information.

To determine whether a QA/QI project requires REB review, and/or may involve risk due to the nature of personal information collected, please fill out the QA/QI determination form and submit it to Daniel Gyewu ( or for social sciences and humanities please send to Dean Sharpe (

Activities exempt from research ethics review

Back to Top ↑

© 2019 Office of the Vice-President, Research and Innovation. All rights reserved. | Site map | Accessibility | Log in