Normally, ICEHR arrives at decisions by consensus. However, on the occasion when consensus is not achieved, a formal vote will be held and the decision will be based on majority vote of those present. The Chair votes in the case of a tied decision.

All proposals receiving approval through the delegated review process are presented to the full committee for notification. 

Conflict of Interest

Members shall not be present or otherwise participate in the review and/or discussion of research with which they are associated as principal co-investigator, collaborator, or as supervisor of student research, whether the proposal is from a student, faculty member, or external researcher. Members shall also not participate in the review of any proposal where the researcher is someone with whom they have or have had a close personal or financial relationship. It is required that members declare any conflict or interest, or preceived conflict of interest, and will excuse themselves from the review of the relevant proposal.

Decisions / Possible Outcomes of the Review Process

The outcome of the review process will normally be one of the following decisions:

• Approval without modifications. The research can proceed as proposed for a one-year period, renewable. 
• Approval with modifications. This requires minor changes to materials for potential participants. Once these changes have been made, the research can proceed for a period of one year, renewable.
• Decision pending submission of additional and/or revised materials, report required. The review is incomplete pending receipt of additional and/or revised information from the researcher required to fulfill the intention of the TCPS 2. ICEHR makes suggestions for additions and/or modifications that should bring the research into compliance with TCPS 2. The research may NOT proceed until a report detailing intended modifications has been received, reviewed and approved by ICEHR. Once the revised proposal has been approved, the research may proceed for a period of one year, renewable. 
• No approval, suggestions for resubmission. The research does not meet TCPS 2 standards.  ICEHR provides the researcher with the reasons for this decision and gives the researcher an opportunity to revise the proposal to be resubmitted with substantial changes, reviewed, and approved before research can begin.
• No approval, and none likely. The research cannot be undertaken without violation of some of the provisions of the TCPS 2. ICEHR provides the researcher with the reasons for this decision, and gives the researcher opportunity to reply before making a final decision. 

Reconsideration of Decisions

Researchers have the right to request, and ICEHR to provide, reconsideration of decisions affecting a research project. Such request shall be made in writing to the Chair of ICEHR.

When ICEHR is considering not approving a proposal, it shall provide the researcher with the reasons for the prospective decision and give the researcher an opportunity to reply before making a final decision.

Appeal Process

If the researcher believes that there has been a procedural problem (such as a conflict of interest of one or more of the ICEHR members) in the consideration of their ethics proposal, they may appeal ICEHR’s decision. Please refer to Memorial University’s Policy on Ethics of Research Involving Human Participants. The decisions of the ICEHR cannot be overridden by the University, except in the case of a successful appeal on procedural grounds.