Annual Reports and Performance Reviews

Annual Reports

(Article 24.2 and Appendix B of the MOA)

Each instructor is required to submit an Annual Report by August 1 of each academic year summarizing her/his contributions and accomplishments in teaching and teaching-related responsibilities, and, except for sessional faculty, in professional practice/research and service. Annual Reports are one means of demonstrating good teaching, as outlined in Appendix B of the MOA. Instructors are to submit the report to the appropriate Faculty Office. A copy of this form is available on this webpage.

Performance Reviews/ Standards of Performance

(Article 24.3; Appendix B; and the Performance Review Policy)

You will be subject to periodic Performance Reviews (the reasons and frequencies are given in Article 24.3.1 of the MOA). Your Dean will advise you regarding expectations. These criteria cover teaching and teaching-related responsibilities and, except for sessional appointments, professional practice/research and service. Faculty members should consult their Faculty Office for forms and inquiries.

Faculty Performance Review Policy


Performance Reviews are conducted in order to review and assess overall performance and to ensure adherence to standards and expectations with regard to teaching & teaching-related responsibilities, professional practice/research, and service, and to make recommendations to the university Performance Review Committee regarding career progress and merit progress increments. Performance Reviews also facilitate the identification and development of recommendations regarding performance issues and/or professional development activities.

Performance Reviews are separate and distinct from the Peer Review process, which is used to make decisions regarding promotion of rank and conferral of tenured appointment.

Timing & Outcomes of Performance Reviews

For CLTA faculty seeking re-appointment, a Performance Review is conducted in the year prior to reappointment in order to make recommendations to the Dean of Faculty concerning future re-appointment, career and merit progress increments, and to identify and make recommendations concerning any performance issues.

For Tenure-track faculty, a Performance Review is normally conducted every year in order to make recommendations to the Dean of Faculty concerning the continuation of their probationary appointment, career and merit progress increments, performance issues and/or professional development. Any decision to grant permanent status is made through the Peer Review process, with consideration given to Performance Reviews conducted during the tenure-track term.

For Continuing faculty, a Performance Review is normally conducted every three years in order to make recommendations to the Dean of Faculty regarding the continuation of their appointment and/or future re-appointments, career and merit progress increments, performance issues and/or professional development.

For Tenured faculty, a Performance Review is conducted every three years to make recommendations to the Dean of Faculty concerning career and merit progress increments, performance issues and/or professional development.

Performance Review Process


Faculty shall be notified of a pending performance review via e-mail and regular mail to their home address by November 15. Such notification shall request confirmation back to the Faculty Office by email or letter confirming its receipt. The Faculty Office will follow up with those faculty members who do not respond to this notification.


In making its evaluation, the Performance Review Committee will consider the following materials:

  • Annual Activity Reports submitted for the past two academic years;
  • Course outlines submitted for the current and previous academic years (to clarify, faculty teaching summer courses should submit summer course outlines for the past two academic years);
  • Performance Review from the previous review period;
  • Any additional materials relating to the current review period submitted by the faculty member and/or Chair of the Performance Review Committee. Only materials which have been brought to the attention of the faculty member under review may be considered, including published course evaluations and written communication on file; [Note: with the recent re-establishment of course evaluations at the University, it should be noted that they will be used with discretion as one of many sources of information considered in the review.
  • Solicited or unsolicited letters of support (e.g. from students, faculty, and externals) will not be considered; nor will anecdotal evidence be considered;
  • Classroom visits may be conducted at the request of the faculty member or the Chair of the Performance Review Committee to be scheduled by mutual agreement, and are a mandatory part of the review process for Tenure-track and CLTA Faculty.

Each non-sessional faculty member shall submit materials required for Performance Review no later than January 31 of the year in which he/she is to be reviewed. It is recommended that faculty review their Performance Review file for completeness.

Faculty Performance Review Committee

The Faculty Performance Review Committee consists of the appropriate Assistant Dean of Faculty (or designate) as Chair and two faculty members elected by a quorum (50%+1) of the total tenured faculty members in the relevant Faculty or, in the event a quorum does not respond, two faculty members selected by the Dean of Faculty from the Faculty’s tenured faculty members.

The Faculty Performance Review Committee meets to discuss the above listed materials and conduct its review of the faculty member’s performance during the current review period. The criteria for review are the Standards for Performance for Academic Ranks, as outlined in Schedule B of the Memorandum of Agreement. The Committee’s comments are documented in draft form on the Performance Review Form.

The Chair of the Faculty Review Committee then meets with each faculty member under review to discuss his/her performance during the review period and to go over the draft Performance Review Form. Following these meetings, the Chair finalizes the Performance Review Form and submits it to the faculty member. Faculty members must sign the Performance Review Form to acknowledge its receipt. Such signature does not indicate agreement with the Form’s contents. The faculty member may choose to add comments to the Form in the section provided. Such final Form shall be forwarded to the College Review Committee as outlined below, as well as entered into the faculty member’s employee file in Human Resources.


In the event that performance problem(s) are identified as a result of a Performance Review, the faculty member and Chair discuss ways to address the issue(s), including professional development if appropriate. The faculty member, in consultation with the Chair of the Faculty Review Committee, will develop a specific action plan and schedule to address the issue(s) identified. Such action plan is attached to the Faculty Performance Review Form and entered into his/her employee file.

Appeal Process

A faculty member who disagrees with the Performance Review and/or its recommendations may discuss his/her concerns with the Associate Dean.  In the event that a satisfactory resolution is not found, the faculty member may appeal the matter in writing to the Dean of Faculty, who will make a determination.

University Performance Review Committee

All final Faculty Performance Review Forms are forwarded, normally no later than April 1, to the Office of the Vice-President, Academic with the Committee’s recommendations for the Performance Review Outcome for each faculty member under review that year. As outlined in Article 24.3.6 of the MOA, the potential Performance Review Outcomes are: meets basic expectations; fully meets expectations; exceeds expectations; and significantly exceeds expectations.

Consisting of the Vice-President, Academic (Chair) and Deans of Faculty, the university Performance Review Committee is responsible for maintaining consistent standards across the University, and ensuring the total number of steps awarded (career/merit progress increases) does not exceed 1.2 times the number of faculty members eligible for career progress increments.

Final decisions of the University Performance Review Committee are normally reached by May 15 and communicated in writing to each faculty member.

bio hira mavi su enginar macunu isveç şurubu diyeti spin mop tablet eskina baligi tasi epimedyumlu macun gümüş suyu dr piton no white hair glucogen borev bulaşık makinesi deterjanı