Clinical Research Regulation For Australia and Canada

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Overview

In accordance with the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-86, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) allows for the supply of unapproved therapeutic goods to be used in clinical trials under two (2) regulatory schemes—the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme and the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme. The G-CTHandbook specifies that the scope of the TGA’s assessment includes all clinical trials (Phases I-IV).

Under either regulatory scheme, per the TGR, the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-86, an ethics committee (EC) (Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) in Australia) must approve the research protocol. The G-NatlStmt further specifies that any research that involves greater than low risk must be reviewed by an EC.

According to AUS-40, all public and private health organizations must also undertake a site-specific assessment (SSA) of each research project. This allows the institution to consider whether the project is suitable for the site and whether it has the capacity to conduct the research at that site. Per the G-TrialsSOP, the SSA and ethics review may occur in parallel. However, EC approval must be obtained and submitted to the research governance officer (RGO) of each participating institution before institutional authorization is granted.

For summaries of the clinical trials regulatory environment, legislation, and guidance, see AUS-40. See AUS-91 for TGA summaries of recent clinical trial reforms.

Clinical Trial Review Process

Per the G-CTHandbook, the sponsor is responsible for the overall decision as to whether the CTN or CTA scheme should be used. Consulting the EC responsible for protocol approval may assist the sponsor in making the decision. The main difference between the CTN and CTA schemes is the TGA’s level of involvement in reviewing data about the therapeutic goods before the clinical trial commences.

However, as noted in AUS-88, the CTA scheme is mandatory for certain Class 4 biologicals. See AUS-86 for more general information on choosing a clinical trial scheme.

CTN Scheme

As per the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-87, under the CTN scheme, the sponsor must notify the TGA of its intention to sponsor a clinical trial involving an unapproved therapeutic good. The TGA does not assess any data relating to the proposed trial at the time of notification. AUS-87 further notes that some ECs and institutions may need the TGA’s acknowledgement before beginning their own approval processes. In these cases, the TGA will accept a CTN submission while the sponsor gets the required approvals from the EC and institution. However, it is the sponsor’s responsibility to ensure that all relevant approvals and authorizations are in place before commencement of the trial.

The G-CTHandbook and AUS-87 indicate that a clinical trial is deemed to be notified as soon as the online CTN form (via the TGA Business Services (TBS) webpage (AUS-36)) has been submitted and the relevant fee has been paid. If there are any changes/variations to the trial details notified to the TGA, the sponsor must update the relevant fields on the online CTN form. AUS-87 notes that some changes/variations (such as the addition of a new site to a trial, a change to the notified therapeutic good that creates a separate and distinct good, or the addition of a new therapeutic good to a previously notified trial) will incur a fee.

The G-CTHandbook further states that the TGA may request additional information if the trial raises any concern, or ask specific questions to address any deficiencies. Specifically, the TGA can request certain information or documents from the sponsor relating to the supply and handling of the goods, as well as the monitoring and results of the supply of the goods. If the TGA directs a trial notified under the CTN scheme not to be conducted or becomes aware that conducting or continuing the trial would be contrary to the public interest, then the goods used in the trial would no longer be exempt from inclusion in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) (AUS-22) and cannot be lawfully supplied. This may occur if the TGA becomes aware that allowing the trial to proceed or continue carries an unacceptable risk of death, serious illness, or serious injury.

CTA Scheme

AUS-88 indicates that the CTA scheme involves an application to the TGA for approval to supply an unapproved therapeutic good(s) in a clinical trial, where the TGA will evaluate scientific data about the therapeutic good(s) (quality, preclinical, and early clinical safety data) prior to the start of a trial. The sponsor can, either following TGA approval or in parallel with the TGA’s evaluation, contact their chosen EC to initiate the EC’s review of the scientific and ethical details of the trial proposal. However, trials can only commence once both TGA and EC approvals have been received.

According to AUS-88, the TGA is in the process of reviewing the CTA scheme. Stakeholders seeking more information on the CTA process are encouraged to contact the TGA at clinical.trials@health.gov.au. Sponsors planning to submit a CTA application are also encouraged to request a pre-submission meeting with the TGA. See the Submission Process section for more information on pre-submission meetings.

AUS-88 states that after the sponsor submits the CTA application form and supporting data, the TGA generally conducts a preliminary assessment to ensure that the data is sufficient to begin evaluation. If there is critical data missing, the TGA will request further information. Once it is satisfied that there is sufficient data/information to commence evaluation, the TGA will send an invoice. The TGA’s evaluation begins after the sponsor pays the fee. During its review, the TGA generally evaluates the quality of the therapeutic good, the safety of the therapeutic good, compliance with applicable Therapeutic Goods Orders (TGOs) (see AUS-93), compliance with international guidelines, and labelling (including traceability). The evaluation process usually consists of two (2) rounds of evaluation and one (1) round of request for information from the sponsor. Additional rounds may be required if there is outstanding information required to support the evaluation process or decision.

As delineated in AUS-88, evaluation reports with recommendations are then submitted to the decision maker, a TGA senior medical officer, for consideration. The decision maker considers the overall risk-benefit profile of the trial, which may include TGA evaluation reports; the trial’s usage guidelines (such as the trial protocol, investigator’s brochure, literature references, and pharmacy guidelines); and plans for shipment and storage at trial sites. The decision maker may seek expert advice from TGA statutory advisory committees. The TGA will inform the sponsor in a letter of the decision whether to approve the trial or not.

AUS-88 further states that if a sponsor wishes to change the therapeutic good(s) or any aspect of the clinical trial that was evaluated in the original CTA submission, a variation requiring additional evaluation by the TGA may be required. These changes are assessed to ensure that the quality and safety of the good(s), or the overall risk-benefit profile of the trial, will not be inadvertently altered by the variation. Examples may include significant changes to the manufacturing process, intended patient group, route of administration, and/or container. CTA variations incur a fee. Any changes that were not evaluated in the original submission or are predicted to have no effect on the therapeutic good or safety of the trial will not be assessed by the TGA. However, all changes should be communicated to and approved by the EC before commencement. Sponsors are encouraged to contact the TGA at clinical.trials@health.gov.au for specific advice on what constitutes a variation to a previously approved CTA application.

As indicated in the G-CTHandbook, the TGA can revoke an approval of a clinical trial under the CTA scheme where the conditions of approval are not met.

Inspection

According to the G-GCP-Inspect, clinical trials of medicines and biologicals regulated under the CTN or CTA schemes are subject to the TGA’s Good Clinical Practice (GCP) inspection program. The TGA can conduct a GCP inspection, which typically occurs over one (1) to three (3) consecutive days, at any stage of the clinical trial lifecycle from the early phase of participant recruitment to completed trials. Additionally, the TGA can request certain information or documents about therapeutic goods exempt under the CTN scheme or approved under the CTA scheme. This can include the investigator’s brochure and protocol, further information about safety reports, clarification about the safety profile of a specific therapeutic good, and/or details of problems or complaints. The TGA will normally give advance notice of its intention to conduct a GCP inspection but has the right to perform an inspection at any time. In exceptional circumstances, the TGA can perform an inspection without notice.

See the G-GCP-Inspect for more details on how the TGA prioritizes and schedules GCP inspections, the kinds of inspections the TGA might conduct, the inspection process, and how the TGA reports and follows up on inspections. See AUS-90 for more information on the TGA’s GCP inspection program.

About this handbook, Is the product a therapeutic good?, Determine if the product is ‘unapproved’, Choosing between the CTN and CTA schemes, The CTN scheme, The CTA scheme, and Responsibilities under the CTN and CTA schemes

Introduction, Terms, and SOP 05

Purpose, Scope and Limits of this Document

Preparing for an Inspection, Inspection Process, and During an Inspection

Part 3 (12 and 12AA-12AD) and Schedule 5A

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Overview

In accordance with the CanadaFDA, Health Canada (HC) reviews, evaluates, and approves applications for clinical trials using authorized therapeutic products. HC also approves the sale or importation of drugs for use in clinical trials. (See the Manufacturing & Import section for additional information on importation.) As delineated in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, institutional ethics committee (EC) review is required for each clinical trial site and may occur in parallel with HC’s clinical trial application (CTA) review and approval. For HC’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100. See CAN-23 for background information on how HC reviews drugs in Canada.

Per the CanadaFDA, a “therapeutic product” is defined as a drug or device, or any combination of drugs and devices, but does not include natural health products; and “therapeutic product authorization” refers to a license that is approved for the import, sale, advertisement, manufacture, preparation, preservation, packaging, labeling, storage, or testing of a therapeutic product. As per the G-CanadaCTApps, a drug is defined as a pharmaceutical, biologic, gene therapy, blood product, vaccine, and radiopharmaceutical for human use that is to be tested in a clinical trial. HC’s scope of assessment includes clinical trials (Phases I - III) using:

Drugs not authorized for sale in Canada in development and in comparative bioavailability studies
Marketed drugs where the proposed use of the drug for one (1) of the following is different: indication(s) and clinical use; target patient population(s); route(s) of administration; or dosage regimen(s)

Clinical Trial Review Process

As set forth in the G-CanadaCTApps and CAN-23, HC’s Health Products and Food Branch (HPFB) coordinates the CTA approval process. The G-CanadaCTApps and CAN-23 state that prior to initiating the trial, the sponsor must file a CTA to the appropriate HPFB Directorate. CTAs involving pharmaceutical drugs should be sent to the Pharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (PDD), and CTAs involving biologics and/or radiopharmaceuticals should be sent to the Biologic and Radiopharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (BRDD).

The G-CanadaCTApps indicates that upon receipt of a CTA, the HPFB Directorate (PDD/BRDD) screens the application package for completeness. If deficiencies are found, the Directorate sends the sponsor a Request for Clarification or a Screening Rejection Letter. If the Directorate finds the application complete, an acknowledgement letter is issued to indicate the 30-day default review period commenced on the date of receipt. See CAN-23 for more information.

Per the G-CanadaCTApps, once a clinical trial is authorized, the sponsor is allowed to sell or import a drug for use in a trial, if a CTA has been filed with HC and has not received an objection within 30 days. If the clinical trial is authorized, a No Objection Letter (NOL) is issued. If the CTA is rejected, a Not Satisfactory Notice (NSN) is issued. During the review period, the Directorate may request additional information from the sponsor, who has two (2) calendar days to provide such information. Please see the G-CanadaCTApps for special requirements regarding reviews of comparative bioavailability studies and joint reviews of clinical trials covering a combination of devices, biologics, and pharmaceuticals. See the Submission Process section for detailed application submission requirements. See CAN-23 for more information.

Per the G-CanadaCTApps, soon after HC issues an NOL, it will publish the following information about the clinical trial in HC’s publicly accessible database:

Protocol number
Protocol title
Drug name
Medical condition
Study population
Authorization date
Sponsor name
HC control number
Trial start and end dates, if known

The CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps also delineate that a clinical trial application-amendment (CTA-A) is required for proposed changes to a previously authorized study when the changes to clinical trial drug supplies affect the quality or safety of the drug, or when the changes to an authorized protocol alter the risk to clinical trial participants, or both. CTA-As must be authorized by HC prior to implementation of the changes. However, if the sponsor is required to immediately implement changes because the clinical trial or the use of the clinical trial drug endangers the health of participants or other persons, the sponsor may immediately make the amendment without prior review by HC. Sponsors must notify HC of this change, provide the relevant rationale in support of the immediate implementation, and file a CTA-A that clearly identifies the change and rationale for immediate implementation of the change within 15 days after the amendment implementation date. In addition, sponsors may make the following changes immediately if it notifies HC in writing within 15 days after the date of the change: a change to the chemistry and manufacturing information that does not affect the quality or safety of the drug; or a change to the protocol that does not alter the risk to the health of a participant.

As per the G-Dcntrl, HC requires information about decentralized elements in the clinical trial application to review whether these elements were designed to minimize risk to participants, support appropriate oversight and monitoring throughout the trial, and help achieve trial objectives. Additionally, sponsors must attest that the trial, including all decentralized elements, will be conducted according to good clinical practice (GCP). Depending on the decentralized elements and activities within the proposed trial known at the time of application, HC will review how participant visits and clinical trial activities will be conducted (e.g., in person, by telephone or telehealth platform, or through third parties or vendors). See G-Dcntrl for more details about clinical trials with decentralized elements.

As delineated in the CanadaFDA and the G-Inspections, HC is authorized to implement an inspection strategy and to ensure compliance with CanadaFDA. The G-Inspections states that HC’s Regulatory Operations and Enforcement Branch (ROEB) monitors compliance, which is assessed through inspections and other compliance and enforcement activities, such as compliance verifications. Compliance verifications of clinical trials may be initiated when there are reasonable grounds to believe that non-compliance may have occurred or is occurring and that enforcement measures may be necessary (e.g., complaints received regarding specific trials, reports of adverse drug reaction(s), or reports from other regulatory authorities). The Clinical Trial Compliance Program within ROEB is responsible for clinical trial site selection for inspections in collaboration with the PDD and the BRDD. A risk-based approach is applied in the site selection process to minimize the potential health risks inherent to clinical trials involving human participants. The selection of sites for inspection is based on a variety of criteria to select sites throughout all levels of the drug assessment and regulatory approvals process. For clinical trial sites with decentralized elements, G-Dcntrl states that the main location of the clinical trial site associated with the qualified investigator (QI) is the primary point of contact for an inspection. HC inspectors may request documentation from sponsors and QIs to demonstrate adequate coordination, oversight, and monitoring of delegated parties, as well as the measures in place to protect participant safety. See the Risk-Insp for a risk classification guide used by ROEB; this guide describes how inspectors classify risk-based observations and assign a rating, promotes consistency, and provides examples of inspection observations.

Per the CanadaFDR, HC will suspend the authorization to sell or import a drug for clinical trial purposes if it has reasonable grounds to believe that:

The sponsor has contravened any relevant laws or regulations
Any information submitted in respect of the drug or clinical trial is false or misleading
The sponsor has failed to comply with GCP
The sponsor has failed to provide information or samples as required by the regulation

See the CanadaFDR for additional details on HC’s suspension and cancellation responsibilities.

Expanded Access Clinical Trial

The Expd-CTs explains that in Canada, an expanded access clinical trial is a type of clinical trial that provides access to investigational products (IPs) that have the potential to treat people living with medical conditions who do not qualify for other clinical trials or are not able to participate in one. When appropriate, expanded access clinical trials can use more flexible protocols and a decentralized model to facilitate access for a larger, potentially more diverse population of participants, in more accessible settings. Since expanded access clinical trials are a type of clinical trial under the CanadaFDR, they require a CTA for review by HC. HC will review applications for the sponsor’s evidence from previous studies that the proposed use of the IP would not endanger the health and safety of participants. HC assesses all CTAs on a case-by-case basis. CTAs for expanded access clinical trials follow the same review processes and timelines as other clinical trials. HC scientists and physicians review expanded access CTAs to assess whether:

The risks in using the drug in the trial are considered and would not endanger health and safety
The best interests of those taking part in the trial have been considered, including that drugs are used in the right way for the participants being studied
The goals of the trial can be met

Per the Expd-CTs, group-level access to a drug in Canada is available only through an expanded access clinical trial and not through the individual-patient Special Access Program. Therefore, sponsors wishing to include a Canadian arm in an international expanded access program for multiple patients must do so through an expanded access clinical trial.

1.1-1.3 and 3.2

1.2, 2.1, 2.3-2.7, and Appendix 1

3 and 4

2 and Part II (Sections 22 (1) and 30 (1.2))

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.001, C.05.002, C.05.005-.008, and C.05.016-.017))

What is the Health Products and Food Branch?

Regulatory Fees

Last content review/update: July 21, 2026

Therapeutic Goods Administration

As per the TGR, the sponsor is responsible for paying a fee to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to submit an application under the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) or Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme for evaluation. Per the G-FeesCharges, the fees are as follows:

$464 Australian dollars for unapproved medicines CTN, and for each notification of one (1) or more additional trial sites
$2,212 Australia dollars for unapproved medicines CTA (30-day evaluation)
$608 Australian dollars for unapproved medicines CTA – variation (30-day evaluation)
$27,500 Australian dollars for unapproved medicines CTA (50-day evaluation)
$7,506 Australian dollars for unapproved medicines CTA – variation (50-day evaluation)
$464 Australian dollars for unapproved biologicals CTN, and for each notification of one (1) or more additional trial sites
$33,489 Australian dollars for unapproved biologicals CTA
$9,136 Australian dollars for unapproved biologicals CTA – variation

For additional fee information, refer to Schedules 9 and 9A of the TGR and the G-FeesCharges.

Payment Instructions

AUS-66 indicates that regulatory fees and charges may be paid online or by bank transfer (electronic funds transfer (EFT)). Online payment by credit card is the preferred payment option, and all payments must be in Australian dollars.

As stated in AUS-25, online payment is made via the TGA Online Payment Portal (AUS-16). Once the payment has been finalized, the Portal will confirm that the payment has been successful. The user may request an email confirmation. Certain payments, including a CTN fee and a variation to a medicine (e.g., a therapeutic good), may be made online without an invoice. See AUS-25 for more information on TGA fees and payments. Also see AUS-49 for additional guidance and system screenshots related to paying CTN fees.

AUS-66 further indicates that to ensure all payments made by EFT are correctly allocated, the organization’s Identification Number (e.g., TGA00xxxxx) should be included in the payment ‘Reference’ field. Bank transfer fees are the payer’s responsibility. Additionally, bank transfers must be accompanied by a remittance advice, which must be issued within 24 hours for all bank transfers. Remittance advices must be emailed to TGARemittanceAdvices@health.gov.au and contain the organization’s Identification Number in the subject field. The TGA’s bank account details are as follows:

Bank: Commonwealth Bank of Australia
BSB: 062-909
Account Number: 10215498

Per AUS-66, payments from overseas can only be accepted in Australian denominations. Payers must ensure that their payment covers any international banking fees. The TGA’s international banking details are as follows:

IBAN: 06290910215498
Swift Code: CTBAAU2S

Paying for Your CTN

Clinical Trials

Schedules 5A, 9 (Part 2), and 9A (Part 2)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

According to CAN-56, there are no fees to submit a clinical trial application in Canada.

Fees

Ethics Committee

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

Overview

As indicated in the TGAct, the TGR, the G-CTHandbook, the G-NatlStmt, and AUS-86, Australia has a decentralized process for the ethics review and approval of clinical trial research. According to the TGR, the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-86, Australia requires human research protocols to be reviewed by an institutional-level ethics committee (EC). The G-NatlStmt further specifies that any research that involves greater than low risk must be reviewed by an EC. (Note: Institutional ECs are referred to as Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) in Australia.)

The G-NatlStmt indicates that one (1) or more institutions can individually or jointly establish an EC or any other ethics review body. Institutions that establish an EC are responsible for adequately resourcing and maintaining it, including providing sufficient administrative support. Per the TGAct and AUS-20, ECs are required to be constituted and operate in accordance with the guidelines issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and to have notified the NHMRC of their existence. According to the TGR, the G-NatlStmt, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-20, institutional ECs ensure that clinical trial research complies with the NHMRC’s ethical standards published in the G-NatlStmt. See the Oversight of Ethics Committees section for more information on notification.

For summaries of the clinical trials regulatory environment, legislation, and guidance, see AUS-40.

Ethics Committee Composition

As stated in the G-NatlStmt, an EC must be composed of at least eight (8) members in the following categories:

A chairperson with suitable experience
Two (2) people who bring a broader community or consumer perspective and have no paid affiliation with the institution
One (1) person with knowledge of and current experience in the professional care, counseling, and/or treatment of people
One (1) person who performs a pastoral care role in the community
One (1) qualified lawyer, who may or may not be currently practicing and, where possible, is not engaged to advise the institution on research-related or any other matters
Two (2) people with current research experience relevant to the research proposals to be considered at the meetings they attend

The G-NatlStmt further states that wherever possible, one (1) or more of the members listed above should be experienced in reflecting on and analyzing ethical decision-making. As far as is practicable, institutions should ensure that their EC’s membership at each meeting has diversity, including gender diversity, and at least one third of those participating in each meeting are from outside of the institution. ECs that review research about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or communities should appoint one (1) or more members who have knowledge of research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples or are familiar with relevant cultural knowledge, if such a person has not already been appointed.

Per the G-NatlStmt, ECs may also include other members with the above areas of expertise or with additional areas of expertise. Institutions are encouraged to establish a pool of appointed EC members to draw on as needed to help meet minimum membership requirements and/or provide additional experience or expertise. The institution should ensure that its EC has access to the expertise necessary to properly review research, which may necessitate going outside of the EC’s membership.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

As delineated in the G-NatlStmt, institutional ECs must ensure that it documents, implements, and publicizes standard operating procedures (SOPs) that promote good ethics review, including:

Meeting frequency, attendance, and conduct
Minutes and agenda preparation
Timely distribution of materials to members before meetings
Timely consideration of applications
Methods of deliberation and decision-making
Processes, if any, for reviewing applications from unaffiliated or international researchers
Disclosure of interests and management of conflicts of interest
Appropriate confidentiality of the content of applications and the deliberations of review bodies
Prompt notification of decisions to researchers
Communicating with researchers, including face to face, by telephone and in writing, (including available forms of electronic communication)
Record keeping
Monitoring of approved research
Reporting and handling of adverse events
Receiving and handling of complaints
Advising the institution(s) of decisions to suspend or withdraw ethics approval of research projects
Attendance of people other than members at meetings

Pursuant to the G-NatlStmt, EC members should be familiar with the G-NatlStmt and other relevant guidelines; prepare for and attend EC meetings or, if unavailable, provide opinions before the meetings; and attend research ethics training programs or continuing education at least every three (3) years. Members should be appointed to an EC using open and transparent processes, and institutions should consider reviewing appointments to the EC at least every three (3) years.

The G-NatlStmt states that as far as possible, each EC meeting should be arranged to enable attendance of all members of the minimum membership categories listed above and other relevant appointed members, either in person or via available technology. Meeting papers should be provided enough in advance to enable members to be fully informed. An EC’s decision about whether a research proposal meets the requirements of the G-NatlStmt must be informed by an exchange of opinions from all members of the EC participating in the meeting. The exchange should, ideally, take place at a meeting with all those members present. Where there is less than full attendance of the minimum membership categories at a meeting, the chairperson must be satisfied, before a decision is reached, that the views of those absent who belong to the minimum membership have been received and considered. The EC should attempt to reach decisions by general agreement or consensus. Voting is neither required nor prohibited. Some decisions may not be unanimous, and a dissent should be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Where requested by a dissenting member, the reasons for the dissent should also be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

According to the G-NatlStmt, ECs may invite researchers, and researchers may request, to be present for discussion of their proposed research. In addition, ECs may seek advice from external experts to help in considering a research proposal. Communication between the sponsor and the EC is not prohibited but should be restricted so that it does not inappropriately influence the review of any relevant research proposals.

As delineated in the G-NatlStmt, ECs must maintain a complete record of all research proposals received and reviewed. Approved project documentation and any relevant correspondence must also be retained. Records must be maintained in accordance with the requirements of relevant Commonwealth and state or territory legislation and guidelines. See G-NatlStmt for detailed records requirements.

For more details on the governance and responsibilities of Australian institutional ECs, see the G-NatlStmt.

The CTN and CTA schemes and Responsibilities under the CTN and CTA schemes

Terms

Purpose, Scope and Limits of this Document, and Section 5 (Chapters 5.1 and 5.2)

Chapter 1 (3) and Chapter 3 (Part 3-2 (18 and 19))

Part 3 (12AA and 12AD) and Schedule 5A

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Overview

As indicated in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, Canada has a decentralized process for the ethical review of clinical trial applications, and requires the sponsor to obtain institutional ethics committee (EC) approval for each participating trial site. (Note: institutional ECs are referred to as Research Ethics Boards (REBs) in Canada.) Canadian provinces may have varying requirements, and, therefore, the sponsor should consult with the applicable province(s) for more information.

Per CAN-35 and CAN-13, all proposed or ongoing research involving human participants carried out by, funded by, or otherwise under the auspices of Health Canada (HC) or the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) must obtain approval from a joint EC representing those two (2) agencies—as well as complying with the CanadaFDR and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. This joint EC is known as the HC-PHAC REB. Further, if an institution is conducting an HC- or PHAC-funded project, the HC-PHAC REB must review and approve the research even if it has been previously reviewed and approved by another EC. See CAN-35 for details on the HC-PHAC REB’s development, responsibilities, and composition. HC’s operational policy (CAN-13) outlines policies and procedures that the joint HC-PHAC REB must follow when reviewing clinical trials.

Institutional ECs are required to comply with the provisions delineated in the CanadaFDR, the G-CanadaCTApps, and CAN-52. Note that per CAN-50, HC-implemented ICH guidance takes precedence over other HC guidance when they are not consistent. For HC’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100. In addition, institutional ECs are guided by the G-TCPS2. Jointly developed by Canada’s three (3) federal research agencies: the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the G-TCPS2 is a policy that sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ECs. However, only CIHR-, NSERC-, and SSHRC-funded institutions are required to comply with this guideline as a condition of funding. According to CAN-14, the CIHR, the NSERC, and the SSHRC created the Panel on Research Ethics (PRE) to promote the ethical conduct of research involving human participants. The PRE develops, interprets, and implements the G-TCPS2.

Ethics Committee Composition

As delineated in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, institutional ECs must have at least five (5) members representing a mixed gender composition, the majority of which are Canadian citizens or permanent residents, and must include:

Two (2) members from a scientific discipline, with broad experience in the relevant research methods and areas, one (1) of whom is from a medical or dental discipline
One (1) member knowledgeable in ethics
One (1) member knowledgeable in relevant Canadian biomedical research laws
One (1) member from a nonscientific discipline
One (1) community representative

The G-TCPS2 mirrors these EC composition requirements, and also requires a Chair who is responsible for ensuring that the ethics review process conforms to the requirements of G-TCPS2. The Chair provides overall leadership for the EC and facilitates the review process based on institutional policies and procedures and the G-TCPS2. The Chair should monitor the EC’s decisions for consistency and ensure that these decisions are recorded accurately and communicated clearly to researchers in writing as soon as possible by the Chair or designate. Institutions must provide the necessary resources and adequate administrative support to enable the EC Chair to fulfill their responsibilities. As mentioned earlier, only CIHR-, NSERC-, and SSHRC-funded institutions are required to comply with this guidance as a condition of funding.

Also, see CAN-52 for additional guidance on EC composition, functions, and operations. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

According to G-TCPS2, institutions must have in place written procedures for the appointment, renewal, and removal of EC members, including Chairs. Further, institutions must have clear written policies describing the mandate of each EC. An institution may wish to use different models for the ethics review of research conducted under its auspices.

The G-TCPS2 states that an EC should have adequate expertise, experience, and training to understand the disciplines, methodologies, and approaches of the research that it considers for research ethics review. Institutions should ensure that all EC members receive appropriate education and training in ethics review of research involving humans, to enable them to fulfill their duties. This includes providing training opportunities for all members in core principles and understanding of the G-TCPS2, basic ethics standards, applicable institutional policies, and legal or regulatory requirements. It includes an understanding of the role and mandate of ECs and responsibilities of EC members. Training should be tailored to the types and complexities of the research that the EC reviews.

Per the G-TCPS2, when there is less than full attendance, decisions requiring full review should be made only when the members present have the specific expertise, relevant competence, and knowledge necessary to provide an adequate ethics review. Ad hoc advisors, observers, research ethics administration staff, and other attendees must not be counted toward quorum or permitted to vote; decisions made without quorum are not valid or binding. ECs must hold regular meetings and normally meet face to face to review research not assigned to delegated review. Where members are geographically dispersed or exceptional circumstances prevent attendance, participation by phone, videoconference, or other technology may be acceptable, provided quorum is maintained and the Chair ensures active participation. A schedule of EC meetings should be communicated to researchers, and ECs should establish a process for reaching decisions requiring full review, such as consensus or, where necessary, a vote.

G-TCPS2 indicates that proportionate review means the level of EC review is determined by the level of foreseeable risk to participants: the lower the risk, the lower the level of scrutiny through delegated review; the higher the risk, the higher the level of scrutiny through full-board review. Full EC review should be the default requirement for research involving humans. Where research is determined to involve minimal risk, an EC may authorize delegated review in accordance with its institutional policies and written procedures. Delegated reviewers may refer proposals to the full EC, and any proposed negative decision must be reviewed and endorsed by the full EC before it is communicated to the researcher. Delegated decisions must be well documented and formally reported to the full EC, which remains responsible for the ethics of all research involving humans within its jurisdiction. ECs must function impartially, provide researchers with a fair hearing, and provide reasoned and appropriately documented opinions and decisions. Approvals and refusals must be communicated in writing. Where members disagree, an effort should be made to reach consensus; if disagreement persists, the decision must be made in accordance with the EC’s agreed-upon and documented process. The EC makes the final determination regarding the nature and frequency of continuing research ethics review using a proportionate approach. At minimum, continuing review consists of an annual status report for multi-year projects and an end-of-study report for projects lasting less than one (1) year.

Regarding records, G-TCPS2 indicates that ECs must prepare and maintain comprehensive records, including all documentation related to the projects submitted to the EC for review, attendance at all EC meetings, and accurate minutes reflecting EC decisions. Where the EC denies ethics approval for a research proposal, the minutes must include the reasons for this decision. When deciding the retention period of their files, ECs should be guided by their institutional record-keeping policies and other relevant legal or regulatory requirements. Files, minutes, and other relevant documentation must be accessible to authorized representatives of the institution, researchers, sponsors, and funders when necessary to assist internal and external audits, or research monitoring, and to facilitate reconsideration or appeals. The minutes of EC meetings must clearly document the EC’s decisions, any dissents, and the reasons for them. EC decisions should be supported by clear references (e.g., date of decision, title of project), documentary basis for decision, the plan for continuing ethics review and timelines, reasons for decisions, and any conditions or limitations attached to the approval. Providing reasons for EC decisions is optional when ethics approval is granted. ECs should have written procedures for its management of record keeping and other submitted reports. EC must maintain reports and decisions on unanticipated issues or changes to approved research.

For examples of EC SOPs, see CAN-13 for the HC-PHAC REB operational policy.

1.2, 1.4, 2.1, and 2.7

Introduction and Chapter 6

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.001, C.05.002, C.05.005, C.05.006, and C.05.010))

2 and 3

About the REB and Policies, Guidelines, and Resources

Information on ICH guidelines implemented by Health Canada and Efficacy guidelines

Scope of Review

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.
ICH Harmonised Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (Effective January 13, 2026): adopted by TGA with a 12-month transition period through January 13, 2027 to provide stakeholders time to ensure full compliance. See the TGA webpage.

Overview

According to the G-NatlStmt, the institutional ethics committee (EC) (Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) in Australia) is responsible for protecting the interests of research participants and for promoting good research by ensuring adherence to the values of research merit and integrity, beneficence, justice, and respect for persons throughout the conduct of the research project. The EC must review the recruitment and consent processes, weigh the benefits and risks of the research, and consider the impact of the research on certain groups of participants deemed to merit special consideration. Additionally, ECs may conduct both scientific and ethics review or may delegate scientific review to a sub-committee.

Pursuant to the G-NatlStmt, the establishment and maintenance of ethics review processes and processes for assessing the risk level of the research are part of an institution’s overall governance responsibility. In addition to ethics approval, research must also be authorized by each institution with responsibility for oversight of the research before it can proceed. See the Oversight of Ethics Committees, Submission Process, Submission Content, Timeline of Review, and Initiation, Agreements & Registration sections for more information on research governance requirements.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

According to the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-86, ECs are responsible for reviewing and approving protocols involving unapproved therapeutic goods under one (1) of two (2) regulatory schemes—the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme or the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme—prior to the sponsor initiating a trial. According to AUS-40, all public and private health organizations must also undertake a site-specific assessment (SSA) of each research project. This allows the institution to consider whether the project is suitable for the site, and whether it has the capacity to conduct the research at that site. Per the G-TrialsSOP, the SSA and ethics review may occur in parallel. However, EC approval must be obtained and submitted to the research governance officer (RGO) of each participating institution before institutional authorization is granted.

The G-CTHandbook states that a CTN scheme is a notification scheme under which the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) does not review or evaluate any data relating to the clinical trial. The EC is responsible for assessing the scientific validity of the trial design, the balance of risk versus harm of the therapeutic good(s), and the overall ethical acceptability of the trial. AUS-87 notes that some ECs and institutions may need the TGA’s acknowledgement before beginning their own approval processes. In these cases, the TGA will accept a CTN submission while the sponsor gets the required approvals from the EC and institution. However, it is the sponsor’s responsibility to ensure that all relevant approvals and authorizations are in place before commencement of the trial.

Under the CTA scheme, as delineated in the G-CTHandbook, the TGA reviews relevant, but limited, scientific data, while the EC is responsible for considering the scientific and ethical issues of the proposed trial protocol. AUS-88 indicates that the sponsor can, either following TGA approval or in parallel with the TGA’s evaluation, contact their chosen EC to initiate ethics review of the CTA scheme trial proposal. However, trials can only commence once both TGA and EC approvals have been received.

Per the G-CTHandbook, the sponsor determines whether to conduct a clinical trial under the CTN or CTA scheme. Consulting the EC responsible for protocol approval may assist the sponsor in making the decision. One of the determining factors for an EC is whether the committee has access to appropriate scientific and technical expertise in order to assess the safety of the product. If an EC feels that it requires additional expertise to review a CTN, it may seek advice from external authorities or it may seek to collaborate with another EC that has the required expertise. An EC may also determine that it does not have access to the appropriate scientific and technical expertise to review the proposed trial under the CTN scheme and recommend review under the CTA scheme.

AUS-14 states that prior to approving a clinical trial, the EC must be satisfied that the trial protocol complies with the following requirements:

G-NatlStmt
Declaration of Helsinki (AUS-52)
AU-ICH-GCP
TGA requirements, including the G-CTHandbook and the G-SafetyDataMgt
Any relevant Australian Government and/or state/territory laws

The G-CTHandbook and the TGR state that during its review, the EC also needs to be aware of relevant state and territory laws pertaining to the supply of therapeutic goods or other clinical trial-related matters. The G-CTHandbook further indicates that ECs have a high level of independence and are responsible for establishing their own processes for reviewing research proposals. According to the G-CTHandbook and the AU-ICH-GCP, if requirements specified in the G-NatlStmt appear to differ from those specified in the AU-ICH-GCP, the TGA recommends compliance with the G-NatlStmt.

As stated in AUS-20, ECs also consider the protection of privacy for humans participating in research and their data. ECs do this by considering whether the research proposal conforms to relevant legislation, principles, and guidelines, including federal and/or state/territory legislation as well as the G-PrivacyAct95 and G-PrivacyAct95A guidelines. See the Personal Data Protection section for more information.

Per the G-NatlStmt, an EC may approve, request modification of, reject, or withdraw approval of a research proposal. The EC must clearly communicate its decision to the researcher(s):

Where a proposal is approved or rejected, or where approval is withdrawn, communication must be in writing (which may include electronic formats) and should include an explicit statement that the proposal meets or did not meet the requirements of the G-NatlStmt. If rejecting or withdrawing approval of a research proposal, the EC should provide the rationale for its decision, including citing the provisions of the G-NatlStmt or relevant institutional policy that underpins its decision, if relevant.
Where modifications are requested, communication may be written or, where appropriate, informal; however, a record should be kept of any informal communication, and guidance should be clearly communicated regarding to whom the researcher’s response should be directed.

According to the G-NatlStmt, varying processes may be used for the review and approval of project extensions, amendments to an approved project, progress reports, and renewal of project approval. Appropriate processes depend on the nature of the original project and any proposed changes, but any process authorized by an institution for these purposes must prioritize the safety and well-being of participants, researchers, and/or the community.

Pursuant to the G-CTHandbook and the TGR, when the EC approves a trial protocol, it takes responsibility for monitoring the progress and conduct of the trial. However, the G-NatlStmt indicates that each institution has ultimate responsibility for ensuring, via its research governance arrangements, that all its authorized research is monitored. Monitoring arrangements should be commensurate with the risk, size, and complexity of the research. Monitoring responsibilities that are performed by the institution’s EC should be based on the EC’s review of the project. However, where research that will take place at multiple sites has been reviewed by only one (1) EC, the ECs of the other institutions participating in the project do not have knowledge of the project. In such cases, only the reviewing EC can take on those elements of monitoring a research project that are commonly performed by ECs.

Per the G-NatlStmt, if the EC or institution has reason to believe that continuance of a research project would compromise participants' welfare, or if the conditions of ethics approval for the project are not being adhered to, it should immediately seek to establish whether ethical approval for the project should be suspended or withdrawn. If an institution or EC considers that suspension of research is necessary, the instruction to stop should come from the management of the institution. If ethics approval for a research project is suspended, the researcher, the institution(s), and, where possible, the participants should be informed of the suspension.

As indicated in the G-NatlStmt, ECs may require researchers to amend research procedures to protect participants. If an EC determines that such changes cannot achieve that end, the EC may decline to grant an extension to project approval or decide to withdraw approval for the research. Where ethics approval for a research project is withdrawn:

The researcher, the institution(s), and, where possible, the participants should be informed of the withdrawal
Continuation of the research project is subject to re-application and re-approval by the EC

See the G-NatlStmt for more details on institutional and EC responsibilities regarding research monitoring.

External Ethics Approval and the National Mutual Acceptance Scheme

The G-NatlStmt encourages the minimization of unnecessary duplication of ethics review, including for research conducted in multiple Australian jurisdictions or across international boundaries. Institutions may accept an ethics review conducted by an entity external to the institution (including overseas review bodies) and should determine their criteria for this acceptance.

Per the G-NatlStmt, researchers who wish to submit evidence of ethics approval by an external EC in support of single ethics review should be aware of existing national or international programs, protocols, policies, standards, and guidance that may be relevant to the institutional decision to accept the review. To facilitate the efficient ethics review of research, researchers must inform any EC of:

All sites at which the research will be conducted
Any information on local site circumstances that is relevant to the ethics review
Any other body that will be considering ethical issues related to the research
Any previous decisions to approve, re-consider, or deny approval of the research by another review body in Australia or elsewhere

See the G-NatlStmt for more information on external ethics approval.

As described in AUS-21 and AUS-41, the National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) scheme further supports the acceptance of a single scientific and ethical review of multicenter research conducted in publicly funded health services. All state and territory-certified public health organizations in Australia are part of the NMA scheme.

Per AUS-68, in order for ethics reviews of human research to be accepted under NMA, the EC conducting the review must be certified under the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) National Certification Scheme of Institutional Processes Related to the Ethical Review of Multi-centre Research (National Certification Scheme), and also be a “Certified Reviewing HREC” under the NMA scheme.

For more information on submissions to ECs under the NMA scheme and the National Certification Scheme, see the Submission Process and Oversight of Ethics Committees sections.

Exemption from Ethics Review

As stated in the G-NatlStmt, some research may be eligible for exemption from ethics review. Where appropriate, exemption is granted, or not, by the institution responsible for the research. Where there is no institution providing oversight of the research, researchers should request a grant of exemption from an EC. Research that may be eligible for exemption from ethics review includes research that carries a lower risk to participants or the community, and satisfies one (1) or more of the following conditions:

The research involves the use of collections of information or data from which all personal identifiers have been removed prior to being received by the researchers, and where researchers explicitly agree: (i) not to attempt to re-identify those with whom the information or data is associated; (ii) to take all reasonable steps to prevent re-identification of the information or data for unauthorized purposes or access to the information or data by those who are not authorized; and (iii) that any sharing of any research data during or after the project will not create any additional risks of re-identification of the information or data
The research is restricted to surveys and observation of public behavior using information that was or will be collected and recorded without personal identifiers and is highly unlikely to cause distress to anyone associated with the information or the outcomes of the research
Is conducted as part of an educational training program in which the research activity is for training purposes only and where any outcomes or documentation are for program use only
The research uses only information that is publicly available through a mechanism set out by legislation or regulation and that is protected by law, such as mandatory reporting information, information obtained from registries of births and deaths, coroner’s investigations, or reports of the Australian Bureau of Statistics

The G-NatlStmt indicates that institutions or other granting bodies must keep a record of any decision to grant exemption from ethics review. See the G-NatlStmt for more information on ethics review exemption.

State and territory ethics review processes

Health Privacy

Clinical trials involving therapeutic goods, The CTN and CTA schemes, and Responsibilities under the CTN and CTA schemes (Role of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs))

3

Terms and SOP 05

Purpose, Scope and Limits of this Document, and Sections 1 (Introduction and Guidelines), 2, 3 (Introduction), 4, and 5 (Chapters 5.1-5.2 and 5.4-5.5)

Part 3 (12 and 12AA-12AD) and Schedule 5A

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Overview

According to the CanadaFDR, the G-CanadaCTApps, and the G-TCPS2, the primary scope of information assessed by institutional ethics committees (ECs) (called Research Ethics Boards (REBs) in Canada) relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of human research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial. ECs must also pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed vulnerable.

See the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which CAN-50 indicates that Health Canada (HC) has adopted, for additional EC responsibilities and requirements. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

As per the CanadaFDR, HC must approve a clinical trial application (CTA) and an institutional EC(s) must give ethical clearance prior to a sponsor initiating a clinical trial. In addition, as delineated in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, institutional EC review for each clinical trial site may occur in parallel with HC’s CTA review and approval. Once HC completes its review, the department issues a No Objection Letter (NOL) if the CTA is approved. However, per the CanadaFDR, the G-CanadaCTApps, CAN-6, and CAN-30, HC will not authorize the sponsor to begin the clinical trial until an institutional EC approval for each participating trial site is submitted. The sponsor should use the Clinical Trial Site Information Form (CAN-6) to submit the required information. The CanadaFDR also states that the EC must review and approve any protocol amendments prior to those changes being implemented.

The G-TCPS2, which sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ECs, requires EC review and approval of research involving living human participants and human biological materials. Further, ECs must have procedures in place to receive and respond to reports of new information, including, but not limited to, safety data, unanticipated issues, and newly discovered risks.

See TCPS2-InterpReview for the Panel on Research Ethics (PRE)’s interpretations of the G-TCPS2, including on the EC’s review of secondary use of non-identifiable information, delegated review of minimal risk studies, and ongoing review.

The G-TCPS2 lays out options, procedures, and considerations for the ethics review of multi-jurisdictional research either entirely within Canada, or in Canada and other countries. An institutional EC may approve alternative review models for research with multiple ECs and/or institutions but remains responsible for the ethics and conduct of research in its jurisdiction or under its auspices regardless of where the research is conducted. The SingleECRev provides guidance on the G-TCPS2’s single EC review model for multi-jurisdictional minimal risk, which seeks to streamline the research ethics review process where additional ethics reviews are not expected to add greater participant protections. In line with a proportionate approach to research ethics review, if research is of minimal risk and spans multiple jurisdictions, institutions that have approved the use of the single EC review model authorize the review of the research by one (1) EC. See the G-TCPS2 for more information about the various review models for multi-jurisdictional research.

Per CAN-8, an attestation must be completed by the EC that reviewed and approved the clinical trial. The completed attestation must be retained by the clinical trial sponsor for a period of 15 years. The attestation should not be submitted to HC unless requested. (See the Submission Process section for detailed submission requirements.)

G-Dcntrl indicates that for clinical trials with decentralized elements a single EC can approve activities at a clinical trial site as well as decentralized trial elements. However, sponsors and qualified investigators may need to obtain their own additional provincial or institutional approvals or permissions, or meet community-specific requirements, to use institutional resources or gain access to specific locations or populations, such as Indigenous communities.

The G-TCPS2 directs the researcher to submit an annual report to enable the EC to evaluate the continued ethical acceptability of the research. Per the G-CanadaCTApps, if an EC terminates or suspends any prior approval or favorable opinion, it must document its views in writing, clearly identifying the trial, the documents reviewed, and the date for the termination or suspension.

1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.5, and 2.7

Research ethics board approval

Introduction, and Chapters 1-2, 6, 8, and 11

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.001, C.05.005, C.05.006, and C.05.010))

Information on ICH guidelines implemented by Health Canada and Efficacy guidelines

Ethics Committee Fees

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

The G-NatlStmt indicates that when establishing an ethics committee (EC) (Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) in Australia), an institution must set out and publicize its terms of reference, including its schedule of fees charged, if any, for ethics review. The institution is responsible for ensuring that its EC operates in accordance with the G-NatlStmt, which includes being satisfied that any fees charged for EC review do not discourage research that the institution has an obligation to support.

Section 5 (Chapter 5.1)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Institutional ethics committees (ECs) may independently decide whether to charge fees to conduct protocol reviews. For example, an institutional EC may require industry sponsors or other for-profit organizations to pay a fee. See specific examples of institutional fee requirements in CAN-3 and CAN-1.

REB Review Fees

Oversight of Ethics Committees

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

Overview

As per the TGAct, the G-TrialsSOP, and the G-CTHandbook, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is responsible for receiving applications from ethics committees (ECs) (Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) in Australia) to be registered. The NHMRC was established by the NHMRCAct. Per the NHMRCAct, the NHMRC’s activities are designed to raise the standard of individual and public health throughout Australia; to foster the development of consistent health standards between the various states and territories; to foster medical and public health research and training throughout Australia; and to foster consideration of ethical issues relating to health.

Research Governance

Pursuant to the G-NatlStmt, institutions may fulfill their research governance responsibilities by establishing and overseeing different levels of ethics review. One (1) or more institutions can individually or jointly establish an EC or any other ethics review body. Institutions that establish an EC are responsible for adequately resourcing and maintaining it, including providing sufficient administrative support.

According to the G-NatlStmt, institutions should ensure that all ethics review processes and the criteria that are used for determining the appropriate process are clear, transparent, and published to enable researchers to submit their research proposals efficiently.

The G-NatlStmt further states that institutions should clearly publicize their policy for access to their EC or other ethics review processes by researchers who are not affiliated with the institution. Additionally, institutions should regularly assess all their ethics review processes, including the criteria for allocating research to different levels of review, to ensure that those processes continue to enable the institution to meet its responsibilities under the G-NatlStmt. Where possible this assessment should be informed by the documented experience of research participants and/or by involving participants or the wider community in the assessment.

Furthermore, as delineated in the G-NatlStmt, institutions should have in place an auditing process to confirm that research is being reviewed at the levels of review that their criteria require and research is being exempted from review only in accordance with the criteria set out in the G-NatlStmt. See the Scope of Review section for more information on exemption criteria.

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

According to the G-NatlStmt, institutions that have responsibility for oversight of research and maintain ECs must register their ECs with the NHMRC. ECs that are not associated with institutions must register themselves with the NHMRC.

Per AUS-20, registration means that the EC has notified the NHMRC of its existence and declared that it meets the requirements of the G-NatlStmt. In order to review and monitor clinical trials of unregistered therapeutic goods, an EC must be notified to the NHMRC, and constituted and operating in accordance with the G-NatlStmt. Forms for registering an EC, notifying the NHMRC of changes to the EC, or terminating an EC’s registration are available at AUS-20.

As per the G-NatlStmt, an institution and its EC must report annually, or upon request, to the NHMRC. The NHMRC, through the Australian Health Ethics Committee (AHEC), will review the activities of ECs to ensure conformance with the G-NatlStmt. Reportable information may include:

Membership/membership changes
Number of meetings
Confirmation of participation in meetings by members in minimum membership categories
The number of research proposals presented, the number approved, the number requiring modification prior to approval, and the number rejected
Monitoring procedures that are in place and any problems encountered with project monitoring
Complaints procedures and number of complaints handled
Any other relevant policies, procedures, or processes as determined by the NHMRC

The G-NatlStmt further indicates that failure to comply with the requirements of the G-NatlStmt may result in the EC being removed from the list of ECs registered with NHMRC. See AUS-20 for more information and the list of registered ECs.

National Certification Scheme

According to AUS-21, the NHMRC developed the National Certification Scheme of Institutional Processes Related to the Ethical Review of Multi-centre Research (National Certification Scheme) to enable the single ethics and scientific review of human research occurring at multiple institutions in Australia. Under this scheme, certified institutions can have their ethics review accepted by other institutions participating in the research project. As part of the National Certification Scheme, certified institutions and their ECs are required to report to the NHMRC on their multicenter research activities.

As per AUS-21, the NHMRC assesses each institution’s interest in certification on a case-by-case basis. Certification respects institutional decisions about research governance matters, including whether research should be conducted at a given site. Before commencing steps to apply for certification, institutions should contact HREC.admin@nhmrc.gov.au.

For more information on the National Certification Scheme and the NHMRC’s continuous certification process, see AUS-21.

As stated in AUS-68, EC certification under the National Certification Scheme is required in order for ethics reviews of human research to be accepted under the National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) scheme. The NMA scheme facilitates single scientific and ethical review of clinical trials conducted in participating jurisdiction’s public health organizations. See the Scope of Review section for more information on NMA.

Role of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs)

Terms

Section 5 (Introduction and Chapters 5.1 and 5.8)

Part 1 (3) and Part 2 (5B, 5C)

Chapter 1 (3)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

There are no applicable regulations or guidance regarding the registration, auditing, and accreditation of institutional ethics committees (ECs).

Submission Process

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

Overview

In accordance with the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-86, Australia requires the sponsor to obtain clinical trial authorization from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for the supply of unapproved therapeutic goods for clinical trials for experimental purposes in humans. The sponsor can apply under two (2) regulatory schemes—the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme and the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme.

Under either regulatory scheme, per the TGR, the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-86, an ethics committee (EC) (Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) in Australia) must approve the research protocol. The G-NatlStmt further specifies that any research that involves greater than low risk must be reviewed by an EC.

AUS-87 notes that some ECs and institutions may need the TGA’s acknowledgement before beginning their own approval processes. In these cases, the TGA will accept a CTN submission while the sponsor gets the required approvals from the EC and institution. However, it is the sponsor’s responsibility to ensure that all relevant approvals and authorizations are in place before commencement of the trial. Additionally, AUS-88 indicates that the sponsor can, either following TGA approval or in parallel with the TGA’s evaluation, contact their chosen EC to initiate ethics review of the CTA scheme trial proposal. However, trials can only commence once both TGA and EC approvals have been received.

According to AUS-40, all public and private health organizations must also undertake a site-specific assessment (SSA) of each research project. This allows the institution to consider whether the project is suitable for the site, and whether it has the capacity to conduct the research at that site. Per the G-TrialsSOP, the SSA and ethics review may occur in parallel. However, EC approval must be obtained and submitted to the research governance officer (RGO) of each participating institution before institutional authorization is granted. While there is no submission language requirement stated in the requirements, the official language of Australia is English.

Regulatory Submission

Per AUS-92, sponsors may request pre-submission meetings with the TGA. A pre-submission meeting can help both the applicant and the TGA to obtain a common understanding of the therapeutic good and what supporting documentation is needed to evaluate the application, as well as any issues to resolve before submitting applications. A meeting can also help the applicant and the TGA plan for the submission and manage both timeframes and resources.

AUS-88 indicates that all sponsors considering a CTA application submission are encouraged to request a pre-submission meeting. In the meeting, the TGA can clarify any questions the applicant has about existing studies or the proposed data package for a CTA application and give specialized advice on the CTA application process (including the best ways to submit the application and dossier).

See AUS-92 for more information on pre-submission meetings and AUS-17 for the applicable forms.

CTN Scheme

According to AUS-87 and AUS-30, CTN forms are submitted online through the TGA Business Services (TBS) webpage (AUS-36). The sponsor must have or obtain a TGA Client Identification Number.

As per AUS-49, to submit the online CTN form successfully through AUS-36, the sponsor must accept a declaration to assume responsibility for the trial. After accepting the declaration, a webpage will advise the sponsor that the CTN submission has been successful.

AUS-49 indicates that the sponsor may delegate duties and correspondence with the TGA to an authorized agent, which is able to create and submit a CTN on behalf of a sponsor. If an agent has submitted a CTN on the sponsor’s behalf, the sponsor will not have access to view or vary the CTN. Access is only granted to the agent.

See AUS-30 and AUS-49 for additional information on using and submitting the online form.

CTA Scheme

According to AUS-88 and AUS-89, the sponsor must submit the application form (AUS-56) and supporting data to the TGA as part of a CTA application, followed by a trial commencement notification form (AUS-57). Per AUS-89, all CTA forms should be submitted to the TGA via email at clinical.trials@health.gov.au (PDFs or Word files). If sending the forms by email (the recommended method), the sponsor is not required to send physical copies to the mailing addresses detailed in each form. Electronic/digital signatures can be used.

AUS-89 indicates that the sponsor should submit the supporting data in an electronic dossier (searchable PDFs). This should be sent via email to clinical.trials@health.gov.au. The sponsor is encouraged to contact the TGA for advice if the file is too large. See AUS-94 for more information on electronic dossiers and submissions.

As stated in AUS-89, the sponsor must send the notification form (AUS-57) to the TGA within 28 days of commencing supply of the unapproved therapeutic goods at each site.

Ethics Review Submission

AUS-46 indicates that the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) developed the Human Research Ethics Application (HREA) form (AUS-9) as a concise application to facilitate timely and efficient ethics review for research involving humans. The HREA assists researchers in considering the ethical principles of the G-NatlStmt in relation to their research and is accepted by institutions that participate in the National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) scheme, which facilitates single ethics review by multiple public health organizations for most human research.

According to the G-CTHandbook, trial sponsors and researchers should use the HREA unless advised otherwise. AUS-19 contains resources for using the HREA.

Per AUS-46, research proposals should be submitted to ECs associated with public health institutions in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Australian Capital Territory, and Victoria, as well as Mater Research, via the Research GEMS system (AUS-55), the Ethical Review Manager (ERM) website (AUS-8), and/or the Research Ethics and Governance Information System (REGIS) (AUS-10), depending on which jurisdictions are involved. For research in the Northern Territory, Tasmania, or Western Australia, the EC should be contacted for their local submission requirements.

The G-CTHandbook further states that ECs have a high level of independence and are responsible for establishing their own processes for receiving research proposals.

Research Governance

According to the G-NatlStmt, institutions should publish (such as on their website) clear policies and procedures for institutional authorization of research. As noted in the G-CTHandbook, individual jurisdictions have specific requirements as a part of their SSA and authorization processes. South Australia sites use the online SSA form found in the Research GEMS system (AUS-55), while the ERM website (AUS-8) is used for SSA form submission for Mater Research, Queensland, and Victoria. New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory use REGIS (AUS-10) for site governance applications.

Authorised Agent and Manual Submission

About this Handbook, Clinical Trials Involving Therapeutic Goods (Determine if the product is ‘unapproved’), The Australian Regulatory Environment, The CTN and CTA schemes, and Responsibilities under the CTN and CTA schemes (Role of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs))

Terms and SOP 05

Purpose, Scope and Limits of this Document, and Section 5 (Chapter 5.5)

Part 3 (12 and 12AA-12AD) and Schedule 5A

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Overview

In accordance with the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, Canada requires the sponsor to obtain clinical trial authorization from Health Canada (HC) prior to initiating the trial. The sponsor must file a clinical trial application (CTA) to the appropriate Directorate within HC’s Health Products and Food Branch (HPFB). In addition, as delineated in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, the sponsor may submit a CTA for clinical trial authorization to the HC in parallel with its submission to an institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as a Research Ethics Board (REB) in Canada) for a favorable ethical opinion. However, per the CanadaFDR, the G-CanadaCTApps, CAN-6, and CAN-30, HC will not authorize the sponsor to begin the clinical trial until an institutional EC approval (provided in the required Clinical Trial Site Information (CTSI) form (CAN-6)) for each participating trial site is submitted. See CAN-30 for instructions on filling out and submitting CAN-6.

CAN-19 provides a full list of HC’s forms for drug-related applications and submissions. For HC’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

Regulatory Submission

Per the G-CanadaCTApps, CTAs (CAN-4) should be sent directly to the appropriate HPFB Directorate for review—the Pharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (PDD) for pharmaceutical drugs or the Biologic and Radiopharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (BRDD) for biological drugs and radiopharmaceuticals.

The G-MDSA and the G-CanadaCTApps indicate that sponsors may request a pre-submission/application meeting with the appropriate directorate within HC if they have any questions or concerns prior to filing a CTA. Additional details on requesting a meeting and meeting procedures are available in the aforementioned guidance documents. According to CAN-4, the submission can be in French or English. For CTAs that use pharmacometric approaches, sponsors should consider the policy statements in G-Pharmacometrics. Pharmacometrics is the science of using quantitative analysis and modelling and simulation approaches to inform and enhance drug development and regulatory review. In addition, see the G-CTACell for guidance on preparing CTAs for use of cell therapy products in humans.

Per the CanadaFDR, an application by a sponsor for authorization to sell or import a drug for the purposes of a clinical trial must be submitted to HC, signed and dated by the sponsor’s senior medical or scientific officer in Canada and senior executive officer. The sponsor’s clinical trial attestation must be submitted with the application (CAN-4). For guidance on completing CAN-4, see the G-DrugApp.

Electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) Electronic Submission

As indicated in the G-eCTD, clinical trial applications in electronic common technical document (eCTD) format are recommended, not mandatory. However, once a sponsor files a regulatory activity in eCTD format, all additional information and subsequent regulatory activities for the same dossier must be filed in eCTD format. CAN-36 explains that prior to filing the first regulatory transaction for a dossier in eCTD format, the sponsor must request a dossier ID using the online dossier ID request. Per the ElecSubms, CAN-20 is the request form for biological clinical trial dossiers and CAN-21 is for pharmaceutical clinical trial dossiers. A request for a dossier ID should be sent a maximum of eight (8) weeks prior to submitting the CTA. In addition, applicants should review the Rules-eCTD for validation rules before submission. (Note: As per ElecSubms, G-eCTD and CAN-36 are only available upon request at no-reply.ereview.non-reponse@hc-sc.gc.ca. Please ensure the text 'Request for eCTD Guidance Document' is in the subject line of the email.)

Per the G-eCTD and CAN-28, all regulatory transactions in eCTD format must be sent via the Common Electronic Submissions Gateway (CESG) (CAN-25), except for those exceeding 10 gigabytes (GB) in size. The CESG allows users to submit secure regulatory transactions electronically to HC, including CTAs. The G-eCTD and CAN-36 describe how to file CTAs and other clinical trial regulatory transactions (e.g., CTA amendments, responses to requests for information, and other in-scope activities) in eCTD format to CESG. The G-eCTD clarifies that prior to using the CESG for sending transactions, sponsors must register as a trading partner. To access and use CESG, CAN-34 instructs sponsors to follow these steps:

Register as a trading partner with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) at the FDA Electronic Submissions Gateway Next Generation (ESG NextGen) (CAN-51) to be able to send a regulatory transaction (Note: CAN-54 indicates that the new version of the platform, ESG NextGen, continues to support HC submissions.)
Send regulatory transactions to HC by selecting “HC” as the center on the FDA ESG system; CTAs intended for HC will be automatically redirected.

For detailed information on how to become a trading partner and send regulatory transactions, refer to CAN-54, CAN-51, and CAN-25.

As indicated in the G-eCTD, the following media formats are acceptable for eCTD transactions greater than 10 GB: Universal Serial Bus (USB) 2.0 or 3.0 drive; or portable external hard drive with USB 2.0 or 3.0 interfaces. (Contact HC at hc.ereview.sc@canada.ca for other media formats that may be acceptable at the time of filing.) A paper copy of the cover letter must accompany the media (unless otherwise indicated), and a pre-paid envelope must be provided if the media is to be returned. The complete regulatory transaction must be provided on a single drive, and the label on the drive should contain the following information:

Stakeholder Name
Brand Name
Dossier ID, which is based on the protocol number
Sequence (regulatory transaction) number

Media must be mailed to HC at the address below:

Health Canada
Finance Building
101 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway
Address Locator: 0201A1
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0K9

See the G-eCTD, CAN-54, CAN-34, CAN-36, CAN-25, and CAN-28 for details on registering as a trading partner for CESG transactions, how to use CESG, and submitting CTAs in eCTD format.

Non-eCTD Electronic Submission

For non-eCTD electronic submissions, G-Non-eCTD indicates that the CTA (CAN-4) must be provided in PDF format. Other files submitted should be in PDF format, unless otherwise specified in G-Non-eCTD. PDF documents should be generated from electronic source documents and not from scanned materials, except where access to an electronic source document is unavailable or where a signature is required. Documents that are more than 10 pages should be bookmarked. Sections, subsections, tables, figures, and appendices should be bookmarked, with no more than four (4) levels of bookmarks. Hyperlinks within the same PDF document are acceptable, but hyperlinks between different documents must not be used. Stakeholders are responsible for ensuring that hyperlinks function, and links must also include references to the applicable section or page. Documents that legally require signatures may be signed electronically, or the signature page may be printed, signed, scanned, and saved as a PDF. If only one (1) page of a multi-page document contains a signature, the scanned page should be included in the same location in the PDF. Each document should have only one (1) PDF file. The cover letter does not require a signature but should include the printed name, phone number, and email address of the contact person.

As explained in G-Non-eCTD, all regulatory transactions should be validated before being transmitted to HC. For the applicable requirements, including validation rules, see the Rules-Non-eCTD. Initial CTAs and CTA-As should be submitted on electronic media, accompanied by a paper copy of the cover letter, and sent directly to the Office of Clinical Trials within PDD for pharmaceuticals or the Office of Regulatory Affairs within BRDD for biologics and radiopharmaceuticals. The ElecSubms contains a zip file of the folder structure for clinical trial non-eCTD submissions. (Note: As per ElecSubms, G-Non-eCTD is only available upon request at no-reply.ereview.non-reponse@hc-sc.gc.ca. Please ensure the text 'non eCTD Guidance Document' is in the subject line of the email.)

Per the G-Non-eCTD, CTA submissions to the appropriate Directorate within HC’s HPFB must be in one (1) of these accepted media formats:

Compact Disc-Recordable (CD-R) conforming to the Joliet specification
USB 2.0 or 3.0 drive
Digital Versatile Disc (DVD-RAM and DVD+R/-R) in Universal Disk Format (UDF) standard

All media should be labelled and contain the following information:

Stakeholder Name
Brand Name

Subsequent to burning the CD/DVD or transferring data to a drive, applicants should ensure that all files can be opened, files are not corrupted, and that "Thumb.db" files are removed.

As per the G-Non-eCTD, G-MDSA, CAN-18, and CAN-17, non-eCTD CTAs involving pharmaceutical drugs should be sent to PDD, and CTAs involving biologics and/or radiopharmaceuticals should be sent to BRDD at the addresses listed below (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Office of Clinical Trials
Pharmaceutical Drugs Directorate
Health Canada
5th Floor, Holland Cross, Tower B
1600 Scott Street
Address Locator: 3105A
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1A 0K9
General Inquiries E-mail: oct.enquiries-requetes.bec@hc-sc.gc.ca

Office of Regulatory Affairs
Biologic and Radiopharmaceutical Drugs Directorate
Health Products and Food Branch
Ground Floor, Health Canada Building 6
100 Eglantine Driveway
Tunney’s Pasture
Address Locator: 0601C
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1A 0K9

Telephone: 613-957-1722
E-mail: brdd.ora@hc-sc.gc.ca

Per the G-Non-eCTD, if an applicant submits a non-eCTD CTA via email, they should meet the following requirements:

The maximum email size accepted by the corporate mail server is 20 megabytes. If the clinical trial submission is larger than 20 megabytes, the submission may be split and sent as separate emails (e.g., an email for Module 1, and another email for Module 2/3). The subject line of the emails should clearly link to each other (e.g., "Email 1 of 2" in the relevant subject line)
A duplicate copy must not be provided by mail
The submission should be organized in folders and the body of the email should only contain the zipped regulatory submission
Zipped files and documents contained in the email should not be password protected

The G-Non-eCTD provides additional information on emailing other clinical trial submissions, including responses to a clarification request, responses to a no objection letter, notifications, and development safety update reports.

Ethics Review Submission

As indicated in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, all research involving human participants in Canada must be reviewed by an institutional ethics committee (EC). (Note: institutional ECs are referred to as Research Ethics Boards (REBs) in Canada.) Because the submission process at individual institutional ECs will vary, applicants should review and follow their institution’s specific requirements. Further, Canadian provinces may have varying requirements, and, therefore, the sponsor should consult with the applicable province(s) for more information. CAN-35 delineates submission requirements to the joint HC-Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)’s EC. This joint EC reviews all research involving human subjects that is carried out by HC or PHAC researchers on the premises or in collaboration with external researchers.

Guidance documents, notices, and supporting documents

1.2, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.7

2.3 and 9

3.1-3.4 and Appendix B

1.3 (Table 1), 3.2, and 5

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.002, C.05.004, C.05.005))

Research Ethics Board (Apply for Ethics Review)

Submissions (Does ESG NextGen support Health Canada)

Submission Content

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.
ICH Harmonised Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (Effective January 13, 2026): adopted by TGA with a 12-month transition period through January 13, 2027 to provide stakeholders time to ensure full compliance. See the TGA webpage.

Regulatory Authority Requirements

Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) Scheme

As delineated in AUS-49, the following information must be submitted to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) through the online form on the TGA Business Services (TBS) webpage (AUS-36):

Sponsor name and address
Sponsor declaration
Notification fee (See Regulatory Fees section)
Organization-nominated contact’s name, phone number, and email
An optional alternative contact, which may be chosen from the contacts for the agent or sponsor organization submitting the CTN. An Australian contact number is required to be listed with either the primary sponsor contact or the alternate sponsor contact
Protocol number
Expected trial start and completion dates
Potential use of restricted goods
Study title and description, which must be a minimum of 250 characters (spaces included) and up to a maximum of 2,500 characters
“This Trial” check boxes indicating whether the trial involves the use of a medicine, a medical device, and/or a biological. For a medicine or biological, additional information must be provided, such as dosage form, route of administration, indication, and the good manufacturing practice (GMP) license/clearance number of a relevant exemption
Trial type
Whether the trial is a first in human trial
Whether the trial, in part or as a whole, has been halted/stopped/withdrawn or rejected in another country due to safety concerns
Total number of trial participants
Therapeutic area
Investigational product (IP) details
Whether it is a multi-center trial
Whether the trial is being conducted in other countries
Preceding trial details
Trial site details

See AUS-49 for detailed descriptions of each required item.

Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) Scheme

AUS-89 states that the CTA scheme includes two (2) forms – Part 1: the CTA application (AUS-56), which is submitted along with supporting data, and Part 2: Notification of the conduct of a trial under the CTA scheme (AUS-57).

Part 1: the CTA application (AUS-56) requires general information (sponsor name, data details, and sponsor declaration) and details on the medicine (active ingredient)/biological be submitted to the TGA.

Part 2: Notification of the conduct of a trial under the CTA scheme (AUS-57) requires trial sponsor information (name and client ID code), the IP or biological, and the notification type, as well as trial and trial site details (title of study and trial type). The form also requires signed certifications from the sponsor, the principal investigator (PI), the ethics committee (EC) (Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) in Australia), and the authority approving the conduct of the trial.

Ethics Committee Requirements

Per the G-CTHandbook, the EC and the institution are responsible for establishing what information should be provided in support of an application. The EC should request any additional information that it believes is necessary to undertake review of the proposed research. Unless advised otherwise, trial sponsors and researchers should use the Human Research Ethics Application (HREA) for submitting proposals for research involving humans to ECs.

AUS-46 indicates that the HREA assists researchers in considering the ethical principles of the G-NatlStmt in relation to their research. The G-NatlStmt requires that those who conduct and approve human research to consider:

How the research question/theme is identified or developed
The alignment between the research aims and methods
How the researchers and the participants will engage with one another
How the research data or information are to be collected, stored, and used
How the results or outcomes will be communicated
What will happen to the data and information after the project is completed

For more information on the HREA, see the Submission Process section.

The G-NatlStmt further specifies that in an application for review of their research, researchers should determine and state in plain language:

The research question or questions that the project is intended to explore
The potential benefit of exploring the question or questions including to whom that potential benefit is likely to flow, and whether that benefit is a contribution to knowledge or understanding, improved social or individual wellbeing, or the skill and expertise of researchers
The basis for that potential benefit as described in either relevant literature or a review of prior research unless, due to the novelty of the question, there is scarce literature or prior research
How the design and methods of the project will enable adequate exploration of the research questions and achieve the aims of the research
How the design of the project will maintain respect for the participants
Where relevant, that the research meets the requirements of any relevant regulations or guidelines authorized by law (such as those related to privacy and reporting requirements for disclosure of child abuse)
Whether or not the project has been reviewed by a formally constituted academic, scientific, or professional review process, and, if so, the outcome of that review

Research Governance

According to the G-NatlStmt, institutions should publish (such as on their website) clear policies and procedures for institutional authorization of research. See the Research GEMS system (AUS-55), the Ethical Review Manager (ERM) (AUS-8), and the Research Ethics and Governance Information System (REGIS) (AUS-10) websites for public health organization site-specific assessment (SSA) forms, which may differ between institutions and states or territories.

Clinical Protocol

The G-TrialsSOP indicates that where the investigator is responsible for the protocol development, the investigator must ensure the protocol follows the outline in the AU-ICH-GCP. Specific content of a protocol will vary depending on the research area, the level of risk to participants, the phase of the research and study design, and whether a medicinal product or a device or a therapeutic intervention is being researched. If satellite sites for a teletrial are involved in the study, no specific additional wording is required in the protocol, as relevant considerations will be addressed in other study-specific documents which may be annexed to the protocol.

The AU-ICH-GCP provides the following outline of the protocol:

General information (protocol title, identifying number, and date; contact information for the sponsor, medical expert, investigator(s), trial site(s), qualified physician(s), and laboratory and/or institutions involved in the study)
Background information
Objectives and purpose
Trial design
Selection, withdrawal, and treatment of participants
Assessment of efficacy
Assessment of safety
A description of the statistical methods to be used in the trial
Direct access to source data and documents
Quality control and quality assurance
Ethical considerations
Data handling and recordkeeping
Financing and insurance
Publication policy

Creating a New CTN Form

Responsibilities under the CTN and CTA schemes (Role of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs))

SOP 04

Sections 3 (Introduction and Chapter 3.1) and 5 (Chapter 5.1)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Regulatory Authority Requirements

As set forth in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, Health Canada (HC) requires the sponsor to apply for clinical trial authorization by submitting a clinical trial application (CTA) to HC. As specified in the G-CanadaCTApps and the G-QCM-PharmCTAs, the CTA should be organized into three (3) modules in Common Technical Document (CTD) format:

Module 1 - Administrative and clinical information about the proposed trial
Module 2 - Quality (Chemistry and Manufacturing) summaries about the drug product(s) to be used in the proposed trial
Module 3 - Additional supporting quality information

Per the CanadaFDR, the clinical trial application form (CAN-4) and the following information and documents must be submitted:

Protocol
Summary of potential risks/benefits
Clinical trial attestation that includes drug information (chemistry, names, classifications, dosage, therapeutic purpose, human-sourced excipient, drug identification number or notice of compliance, manufacturing information); sponsor’s contact information; if the drug is to be imported, contact information for the sponsor’s representative in Canada who is responsible for the sale of the drug; and contact information for the qualified investigator at each site, if known at the time of submittal
Contact information for each institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as Research Ethics Board (REB) in Canada) that approved the protocol, if known at the time of submitting the application (provided in the required Clinical Trial Site Information (CTSI) form (CAN-6))
Contact information of any institutional EC that previously refused to approve the protocol, its reasons, and refusal date
Investigator’s Brochure (IB)
Informed consent form (ICF)
Information about use of a human-sourced excipient
Chemistry and manufacturing information
Proposed date for trial commencement at each site, if known

Per the Mdrn-CTFrmwrk, for multi-site trials operating within a streamlined multi-site ethics review process, sponsors sometimes identify the same EC for all clinical trial sites. When providing information on a new site through CAN-6, sponsors only need to include the contact information for an EC once, as long as:

The same EC has previously been identified as having approved other sites in that trial
The EC's contact information has already been provided to HC in the context of the clinical trial, and continues to be up to date

Accordingly, as indicated in the Mdrn-CTFrmwrk, the form's section on EC approval may only contain the name of the approving board and the date of its approval.

Refer to the CanadaFDR, the G-FDR-0100, the G-CanadaCTApps, the G-DrugApp, the G-QltyBioCTs, and the G-QCM-PharmCTAs for detailed submission information.

Ethics Committee Requirements

Each institutional EC has its own application form and clearance requirements, which can differ significantly regarding the number of copies to be supplied and application format requirements.

The G-TCPS2, which sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ECs, requires clinical trial researchers to submit their research proposals for EC review and approval of their ethical acceptability prior to the start of recruitment of participants, data collection, access to data or collection of human biological materials. Researchers must submit sufficient details to enable the EC to make an informed review of the ethical acceptability of the research. In addition, they should include a plan for monitoring safety, efficacy/effectiveness (where feasible), and validity in their proposal for EC review. This plan must describe:

How participant safety will be monitored and what actions will be taken in the event of a threat to participant safety
How intervention efficacy will be monitored (where feasible) and what actions will be taken if efficacy is found to be greater than expected
The criteria by which participants may be removed from a study for safety reasons
The study-wide stopping rules (if any) by which studies may be stopped or amended due to evidence of inferior safety, superior efficacy or futility
The reporting procedure that will be followed to ensure any information relevant to participant welfare or consent is reported clearly and in a timely fashion to the EC

See CAN-35 for submission requirements to the joint HC-Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)'s REB. This joint EC reviews all research involving human subjects that is carried out by HC or PHAC researchers, on the premises, or in collaboration with external researchers.

Clinical Protocol

The CanadaFDR requires submission of a clinical trial protocol. Per G-FDR-0100, a protocol should describe the objectives, design, methodology, statistical considerations and organization of a clinical trial, and it should be consistent with the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52). The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence. CAN-50 indicates that HC adopted CAN-52.

2.3 and 2.7

Introduction, Application and Authorization, and Appendix A (Glossary)

I Introduction, S Drug Substance, and P Drug Product

Chapter 6 (Article 6.11) Chapter 11 (Article 11.6)

1

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.001, C.05.004, and C.05.005))

Apply for Ethics Review

Efficacy guidelines

Timeline of Review

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

Overview

In accordance with the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-86, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is responsible for authorizing the supply of unapproved therapeutic goods for clinical trials under two (2) regulatory schemes—the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme and the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme. According to the TGR, the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-86, under either regulatory scheme, an ethics committee (EC) (Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) in Australia) must approve research protocols. The G-NatlStmt further specifies that any research that involves greater than low risk must be reviewed by an EC.

AUS-87 notes that some ECs and institutions may need the TGA’s acknowledgement before beginning their own approval processes. In these cases, the TGA will accept a CTN submission while the sponsor gets the required approvals from the EC and institution. However, it is the sponsor’s responsibility to ensure that all relevant approvals and authorizations are in place before commencement of the trial. Additionally, AUS-88 indicates that the sponsor can, either following TGA approval or in parallel with the TGA’s evaluation, contact their chosen EC to initiate ethics review of the CTA scheme trial proposal. However, trials can only commence once both TGA and EC approvals have been received.

According to AUS-40, all public and private health organizations must also undertake a site-specific assessment (SSA) of each research project. Per the G-TrialsSOP, the SSA and ethics review may occur in parallel.

Regulatory Authority Approval

No timeline information is available for applications under the CTN or CTA schemes.

For information on how to check the status of a CTN, see AUS-49. Per AUS-88, stakeholders seeking more information on the CTA process are encouraged to contact the TGA at clinical.trials@health.gov.au.

Ethics Committee Approval

The EC review and approval process timeline varies by institution. However, according to the G-NatlStmt, the institutional EC must implement standard operating procedures that promote good ethics review, including timely consideration of applications.

Research Governance

The G-GovHndbk indicates that ethical review and site assessment, both components of research governance, are two (2) distinct processes relating to the ethical approval and institutional authorization of research involving humans. However, because evidence of EC approval is a component of the site assessment process, institutional authorization of a research project cannot be given until EC approval has been provided. The G-TrialsSOP further specifies that EC approval must be obtained and submitted to the research governance officer (RGO) of each participating institution before institutional authorization is granted.

While some parts of the research governance review must occur after the EC review, the G-GovHndbk recommends that as part of the national approach to single ethical review, institutions establish processes to facilitate parallel review. Project documentation processes related to site assessment may be considered as falling into these categories:

That which can be assessed independent of ethical review, such as evidence of research qualifications, supporting department approval forms, contracts, budgets, and insurance and indemnity documents
That which is subject to ethical review, but can be submitted prior to or in parallel with ethical review to enable independent assessment of other documentation, such as initial project application documents
That which can only be assessed subsequent to ethical approval, such as approved project application documents, fully signed regulatory documents, and a certificate of ethical approval

See the G-GovHndbk for additional National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidance on best practices in the governance of multicenter human research as part of the national approach to single ethical review.

The NHMRC also developed the GPP-SiteAssess to help institutions streamline the research governance process and shorten clinical trial start-up times. See the GPP-SiteAssess for more information.

Report of the pilot of the Good Practice Process – Executive summary

Responsibilities under the CTN and CTA schemes (Role of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs))

Terms and SOP 05

Purpose, Scope and Limits of this Document and Section 5 (Chapter 5.1)

Part 3 (12 and 12AA-12AD) and Schedule 5A

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Overview

As delineated in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, the review and approval of a clinical trial application (CTA) by Health Canada (HC) and an institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as Research Ethics Board (REB) in Canada) may be conducted in parallel. However, per the CanadaFDR, the G-CanadaCTApps, CAN-6, and CAN-30, HC will not authorize the sponsor to begin the clinical trial until an institutional EC approval (provided in the required Clinical Trial Site Information (CTSI) form) for each participating trial site is submitted. For HC’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

Regulatory Authority Approval

According to the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, an authorized clinical trial is one that has been filed with HC and has not received an objection within 30 days. All CTAs are subject to the 30-day default period from the date of receipt of the completed application at the appropriate Directorate within HC’s Health Products and Food Branch (HPFB). While the Directorates can establish shorter administrative targets of seven (7) days for the review of bioequivalence trials, the 30-day default system remains the regulatory requirement. Applications to conduct Phase I clinical trials using somatic cell therapies, xenografts, gene therapies, prophylactic vaccines, or reproductive and genetic technologies are not included in the seven-day target system. Please see the G-CanadaCTApps for special requirements regarding reviews of comparative bioavailability studies and joint reviews of clinical trials covering a combination of devices, biologics, and pharmaceuticals.

As specified in the G-CanadaCTApps and the G-MDSA, during the review period, the Directorate may request additional information from the sponsor, who has two (2) calendar days to provide such information. The G-MDSA clarifies that, where warranted, HC can adjust the timelines to be longer or shorter based on the complexity of the request, communications with the sponsor, and/or circumstances of the review, including pausing the clock during the scientific review. The G-CanadaCTApps also states that HC will issue a Not Satisfactory Notice (NSN) if a timely response to requested information has not been provided. The G-MDSA indicates that the review of the submission will stop on the date the NSN is sent.

Ethics Committee Approval

The EC review and approval process timeline varies by institution. The G-TCPS2, which sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ECs, recommends a proportionate approach to ethics review—the lower the level of risk, the lower the level of scrutiny (delegated review); the higher the level of risk, the higher the level of scrutiny (full board review). In either case, pursuant to the G-TCPS2, the institutional EC should make its decisions in an efficient and timely manner.

See CAN-35 for ethics review timelines with the joint HC-Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)'s EC. This joint EC reviews all research involving human subjects that is carried out by HC or PHAC researchers, on the premises, or in collaboration with external researchers.

2.1, 2.3.3, 2.5, and 2.7

4.1.3, 4.2 and 4.4

Chapter 2 (Articles 2.8 and 2.9) and Chapter 6 (Article 6.13)

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.005 and C.05.006))

Apply for Ethics Review

Initiation, Agreements & Registration

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

Overview

In accordance with the G-TrialsSOP, the G-CTHandbook, and AUS-86, clinical trials involving unapproved therapeutic goods can only commence under the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme or the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme. According to the G-GovHndbk and the G-TrialsSOP, under either scheme, both institutional ethics committee (EC) (Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) in Australia) approval and research governance authorization are required before a research project can commence at a site.

AUS-87 notes that for trials conducted under the CTN scheme, it is the sponsor’s responsibility to have all relevant approvals in place. All approvals must be obtained before supplying the unapproved therapeutic good(s) in the clinical trial. After submission of the online CTN form with payment of the relevant fee is made to the TGA, the clinical trial is deemed to have been notified. Once this notification occurs, the sponsor may lawfully supply the unapproved therapeutic good(s) for the purposes of the trial. A CTN acknowledgement from the TGA is not required before the trial can begin recruiting.

AUS-89 indicates that the sponsor must send a trial commencement notification form (AUS-57) to the TGA within 28 days of commencing supply of the good(s) at each site for each new trial conducted under the CTA scheme, as well as additional sites in ongoing CTA trials.

Research Governance

Per the G-GovHndbk, research must be governed by the institution at all stages of a project. Ethical review and site assessment, both components of research governance, are two (2) distinct processes relating to the ethical approval and institutional authorization of research involving humans. According to AUS-40, all public and private health organizations must undertake a site-specific assessment (SSA) of each research project. This allows the institution to consider whether the project is suitable for the site, and whether it has the capacity to conduct the research at that site. Pursuant to the G-NatlStmt, authorization of research by the institution should consider, but not re-review, any issues raised during the ethics review of the research proposal, and each institution should have a process or processes for assessing the risk level of the research. These processes may involve seeking advice from relevant clinical or administrative staff, members of an EC, or a full meeting of the EC. All research should be developed, reviewed, authorized, conducted, and monitored in accordance with a research governance framework as described in an institution’s policy. For more information on institutional responsibilities, see the Site/Investigator Selection section.

The G-TrialsSOP states that in the case of a teletrial, the principal investigator (PI) must ensure that a robust site assessment is undertaken that fully quantifies the capabilities of each satellite site to inform the extent to which trial related activities can be delegated to the site. This may include a pre-commencement assessment before a specific trial is proposed so that the process of trial start up is expedited when a suitable trial is identified.

Per the G-TrialsSOP, prior to a study’s commencement, the PI must:

Submit the primary site's Clinical Trial Research Agreement (CTRA), EC approval, the SSA form, evidence of any relevant good clinical practice (GCP) training, and any other required documentation to the institution’s research governance officer (RGO)
Ensure all documentation and correspondence pertaining to the submission and approval processes is filed in the study master file (SMF) (see Appendix 8 of the G-TrialsSOP)
Ensure each satellite site completes and submits to their RGO a clinical trial sub-contract and an SSA form
Await site specific RGO authorization before any study related activity can occur at that site
Ensure the satellite site files all documentation in the satellite site study file (SSSF)

The G-TrialsSOP further states that prior to the initiation of a study, the investigator must also mutually agree with the sponsor on a scheduled date, time, and location for a study initiation visit at the participating site to ensure the site is prepared to commence the study. In the case of a teletrial, this may be at the primary site only, or could include (remotely) the satellite site(s) as determined by the study complexity by the sponsor/PI.

See the G-TrialsSOP for more information on site initiation requirements for primary and satellite sites.

The G-GovHndbk further indicates that in the national approach to single ethical review, site assessment and project authorization are the responsibility of each institution participating in a multicenter human research project while ethical review is provided by a single EC using certified ethical review processes. Each institution collaborating in a multicenter project utilizing the outcome of a single ethical review must individually authorize the commencement of research at their institution. To avoid unnecessary delays in research commencing at all collaborating centers and sites, each institution should consider relevant local matters prior to or in parallel with ethical review.

Clinical Trial Agreement

As delineated in the AU-ICH-GCP, the sponsor must sign an agreement between all involved parties, including investigators, institutions, contract research organizations, and others for documentation purposes. Further, the sponsor should obtain the investigator’s/institution's agreement to:

Conduct the trial in compliance with good clinical practice, with the applicable regulatory requirement(s), and with the protocol agreed to by the sponsor and given approval/favorable opinion by the EC
Comply with procedures for data recording and reporting
Permit monitoring, auditing, and inspection
Retain the trial-related essential documents until the sponsor informs the investigator/institution these documents are no longer needed

The sponsor and the investigator/institution should sign the protocol, or an alternative document, to confirm this agreement.

For the purposes of the G-TrialsSOP, the CTRA for the primary site and the sub-contract for each satellite site constitute part of a research governance application, which is submitted to the RGO. The CTRA covers matters such as confidentiality, intellectual property, ownership of data, insurance, and indemnity. The Medicines Australia CTRA (see AUS-38) is the recommended standard form.

Clinical Trial Registration

The G-NatlStmt requires that clinical trials be registered on a publicly accessible register complying with international standards before recruitment of the first participant. For information on these standards, see the World Health Organization (WHO)’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (AUS-67). Per AUS-15, the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (AUS-12) recommends applying for registration at the same time as ethics submission.

The CTN and CTA schemes

1.17, 5.1.2, 5.6.3, and 8.2.6

Terms; SOPs 03, 05, and 06; and Appendix 8

Sections 3 (Chapter 3.1) and 5 (Chapter 5.1)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Overview

In accordance with the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, a clinical trial can only commence after the sponsor receives authorization from both Health Canada (HC) and an institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as Research Ethics Board (REB) in Canada). No waiting period is required following the applicant’s receipt of these approvals. CAN-30 specifies that for purposes of the Clinical Trial Site Information (CTSI) Form (CAN-6), the trial commencement date is the date when the clinical trial site is ready to enroll participants. The commencement date is a date after which the sponsor has both the HC authorization from the appropriate Directorate (date on the No Objection Letter (NOL) or the date of the Notice of Authorization) and approval from the relevant EC. Further, the commencement date would be the date when the sponsor implements the protocol, which includes the screening period that occurs prior to the check-in date. See the Scope of Review section for detailed institutional EC requirements, and the Submission Content section for additional HC approval information. For HC’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

In addition, per the G-CanadaCTApps, if a sponsor (Canadian or foreign) wants to import a drug into Canada to conduct a clinical trial, a copy of HC’s clinical trial authorization (i.e., the NOL) must be included with the drug shipment. According to the G-CanadaCTApps and CAN-32, if a sponsor plans to import investigational drugs directly to each trial site, then the sponsor must also authorize the importer (i.e., the clinical trial site) when submitting the clinical trial application using Appendix I of HC’s Drug Submission Application Form (CAN-4). See the Manufacturing & Import section for detailed import requirements.

Clinical Trial Agreement

Prior to initiating trial activities, as delineated in the G-FDR-0100, agreements made by the sponsor with the qualified investigator, institution, service providers, and any other parties (e.g., independent data monitoring committee or adjudication committee) involved with the clinical trial should be documented. The sponsor is also responsible for obtaining agreements from all involved parties to permit monitoring and auditing by sponsors, inspections by regulatory authorities (domestic and foreign) and review by ECs, including providing direct access to source records and facilities, including those of service providers. Any of the sponsor's trial-related activities that are transferred to and assumed by a service provider should be documented in an agreement. The sponsor's trial-related activities that are not specifically transferred to and assumed by a service provider are retained by the sponsor.

In accordance with the G-CanadaCTApps, prior to initiating a clinical trial, the sponsor must ensure that a Qualified Investigator Undertaking (QIU) form (CAN-37 or similar documentation that meets the CanadaFDR requirements) has been completed and is kept on file by the sponsor. Per the CanadaFDR, the form certifies that the QI will conduct the clinical trial in accordance with good clinical practice and will immediately inform trial participants and the institutional EC of trial discontinuance and the reason for this discontinuance. If there is a change in the QI at a site, a new CTSI Form must be submitted to HC, and a new QIU form must be maintained by the sponsor.

G-Dcntrl indicates that sponsors and QIs are responsible for ensuring that all agreements supporting decentralized trial activities clearly define roles, responsibilities, and oversight expectations. Trial-related activities delegated to service providers should be documented in written agreements that establish how tasks will be performed, supervised, and documented; investigational products and data will be managed; and compliance with regulations and good clinical practice will be maintained.

See CAN-6, CAN-8, and CAN-19 for additional clinical trial forms. Also see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Clinical Trial Registration

As per the CT-Rgstrn, sponsors should register their clinical trial before it has opened for enrollment in Canada but no later than 21 calendar days after the date of enrollment of the first participant. HC considers the registration date as the date when the clinical trial registration materials are first submitted to a registry. For a multi-national clinical trial with one (1) or more Canadian sites, sponsors should add the Canadian site(s) to their existing registry record. Ideally, this should be done before opening for enrollment, but no later than 21 calendar days after the date of enrollment of the first participant at the Canadian site(s). Sponsors should register their clinical trial with an international clinical trial registry that complies with World Health Organization (WHO) international standards, including the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (CAN-60). Two (2) widely used registries that are publicly accessible and part of the WHO network are ClinicalTrials.gov (CAN-45), and the International Standardized Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry (CAN-46). Sponsors should include the protocol code/number in their registry record.

Also see HC’s Clinical Trial Search Portal (CAN-59), which is a search tool to find information about Canadian clinical trials. It is not a registry, but some of the information is collected directly from international registries.

Registration and Resources

1.2 and 2.7

Agreements

5.6

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.006))

Efficacy guidelines

Safety Reporting

Last content review/update: March 17, 2026

Safety Reporting Definitions

According to the G-SftyRpt, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Australia’s safety reporting requirements:

Adverse Event (AE) – Any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical trial participant administered a medicinal product and that does not necessarily have to have a causal relationship with this treatment
Adverse Reaction (AR) – Any untoward and unintended response to an investigational medicinal product related to any dose administered
Unexpected Adverse Reaction (UAR) – An adverse reaction, the nature or severity of which is not consistent with the applicable product information (e.g., investigator's brochure (IB) for an unapproved investigational medicinal product)
Serious Adverse Event (SAE) or Serious Adverse Reaction (SAR) – Any adverse event/adverse reaction that results in death, is life-threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly or birth defect
Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction (SUSAR) – An adverse reaction that is both serious and unexpected
Significant Safety Issue (SSI) – A safety issue that could adversely affect the safety of participants or materially impact the continued ethical acceptability or conduct of the trial
Urgent Safety Measure (USM) – A measure required to be taken in order to eliminate an immediate hazard to a participant’s health or safety (Note: This type of SSI can be instigated by either the investigator or sponsor and can be implemented before seeking approval from ethics committees (ECs) or institutions)

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

As specified in the G-SftyRpt, the investigator is responsible for recording and assessing all AEs that occur at the site. The investigator is also required to inform the sponsor of all SAEs, and all USMs instigated by the site, within 24 hours of becoming aware of the event. All safety critical events must be reported to the sponsor, and for reported deaths, the investigator should supply the sponsor with any additional requested information. Further, the investigator must report to the institution all SSIs and SUSARs arising from the local site within 72 hours of becoming aware of the event.

However, the G-TrialsSOP states that the investigator must also report any SUSARs to the sponsor within 24 hours of becoming aware of the event, and USMs instigated by the investigator or site must be reported to the sponsor within 72 hours. Furthermore, the investigator must report all other significant issues to the sponsor within 15 days of instigating or becoming aware of the event. The investigator must notify the sponsor promptly regarding any changes significantly affecting the conduct of the trial, and/or increasing the risk to participants. The investigator must also be available to meet with the sponsor to discuss study progress, issues, and safety.

The G-TrialsSOP requires that within 72 hours of instigating or becoming aware of the event, the investigator must notify the institution of:

USMs
SUSARs arising from the local site
Any information received from the sponsor that may be new and have an impact on the continued ethical acceptability of the trial or may indicate the need for amendments to the trial protocol, including monitoring of safety

The G-TrialsSOP indicates that for satellite site(s) in teletrials, staff must report safety issues directly to the sponsor as per the timelines specified in the clinical trial protocol and the safety monitoring plan or similar document, in the same way as the primary site. Certified copies of the relevant safety reports/documentation generated at the satellite site must be sent to the primary site for filing in a study master file.

According to the G-TrialsSOP, the principal investigator (PI) must ensure that study staff, including those at teletrial satellite sites, are trained in the protocol, investigator’s brochure (IB), study procedures, and AE/SAE reporting. The PI must also ensure that a system for safety reporting duties is in place for all study staff. For more information on investigator responsibilities related to standard operating procedures (SOPs), see the G-TrialsSOP.

Sponsor Responsibilities

As delineated in the G-SafetyDataMgt, the G-SftyRpt, and the G-CTHandbook, the sponsor is required to expedite reporting of SUSARs to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

The G-SafetyDataMgt indicates that other situations requiring expedited reporting may include information that might materially influence the benefit-risk assessment of an investigational product, or that would be sufficient to consider changes in the administration or conduct of a clinical trial.

According to the G-SftyRpt and the G-TrialsSOP, expedited reporting requires the sponsor to file reports to the TGA in the following specified timelines:

For an Australian SUSAR that is fatal or life-threatening, immediately, but no later than seven (7) calendar days, with any follow-up information within eight (8) calendar days
For all other Australian SUSARs, no later than 15 calendar days after becoming aware of the case

The G-SftyRpt and the G-TrialsSOP further indicate that the TGA, the EC, and investigators must also be notified of all SSIs that adversely affect the safety of participants, or materially impact the continued ethical acceptability or conduct of the trial. SSIs that meet the definition of a USM should be reported within 72 hours, and all other SSIs should be reported within 15 calendar days of the sponsor being made aware of the issue. It is strongly recommended that the sponsor contact the TGA within 24 hours of a USM being taken, and if initial contact is by telephone, it should be followed up with a written notification provided by e-mail within 72 hours. See AUS-53 for additional information on SSIs and USMs.

Per the G-SftyRpt, submitting individual reports of AEs, SAEs, and SUSARs to ECs, institutions, and investigators are no longer required. However, according to the G-TrialsSOP, the sponsor must provide the EC with an updated IB at least annually that supports trial oversight, depicts a clear picture of the evolving trial safety profile, and provides evidence that the sponsor is conducting its safety monitoring appropriately.

The G-CTHandbook and the G-SftyRpt further require the sponsor to maintain records of all other single case AEs and submit them to the TGA upon request. The G-CTHandbook indicates that the TGA does not require sponsors to submit individual SUSARs from outside Australia. Sponsors should continually monitor the safety of their clinical program and advise the TGA of any SSIs that arise from their analysis of overseas reports, or of any action that has been taken by another country’s regulatory agency. Investigators and ECs should also be informed of this information, and sponsors must be able to provide the TGA with the clinical details of any individual overseas AE reports if requested.

According to the G-TrialsSOP, the sponsor’s plans for safety data monitoring should be documented in a safety monitoring plan or similar document and be given to the PI prior to commencement of the clinical trial. The plan must be continually reviewed and updated during the trial, as real-time assessments of safety data are performed, and outcomes are made available.

Other Safety Reports

The G-SftyRpt delineates that the sponsor must provide the EC with an annual safety report including a clear summary of the evolving trial safety profile. The annual safety report should generally include:

A brief description and analysis of new and relevant findings
For investigational products (IPs) not on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) (AUS-22), a brief analysis of the safety profile of the IP and its implications for participants
A brief discussion of the implications of the safety data to the trial’s risk-benefit ratio
A description of any measures taken or proposed to minimize risks

A Development Safety Update Report (DSUR) or other similar document may also serve as the annual safety report. See the G-SftyRpt for more information.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

As per the G-CTHandbook, all SUSARs from Australian sites must be reported to the TGA using one (1) of three (3) formats:

The Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) functionality, which allows sponsors to submit AE reports directly from their system to the TGA (more information can be found at AUS-26)
The online reporting form, which can be accessed from AUS-51
The CIOMS Form I (AUS-4) or the TGA’s Blue Card Adverse Reaction Reporting Form (AUS-3)

Per AUS-3, the Blue Card form may be emailed to adr.reports@health.gov.au or mailed to Pharmacovigilance and Special Access Branch, PO Box 100, Woden ACT 2606. More information about reporting to the TGA may be found on the Adverse Event Management System (AEMS) (AUS-7).

See AUS-37 for the SSI/USM reporting form, which should be submitted to clinical.trials@health.gov.au.

Introduction, Definitions and Terminology Associated with Clinical Safety Experience, Standards for Expedited Reporting, and Attachment 1

Summary of Main Changes to Reporting Requirements and Part 1 - Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP) Trials (C. An Overview of Safety Monitoring and Reporting Responsibilities)

Safety reporting to TGA for CTN and CTA trials

SOPs 02, 05, and 12

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Safety Reporting Definitions

According to the CanadaFDR and G-CanadaCTApps, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Canada’s safety reporting requirements:

Adverse Event (AE) – Any adverse occurrence in the health of a clinical trial participant who is administered a drug that may or may not be caused by the administration of the drug, and includes an adverse drug reaction.
Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) – Any noxious and unintended response to a drug that is caused by the administration of any dose of the drug.
Serious Adverse Drug Reaction (SADR) or Serious Adverse Event (SAE) – Any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose: results in death, is life threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or causes a congenital anomaly/birth defect.
Serious, Unexpected ADR – A serious ADR that is not identified in nature, severity, or frequency in the risk information set out in the investigator’s brochure or on the label of the drug.

The G-TCPS2, which sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ethics committees (ECs), requires researchers to promptly report new information revealed during the conduct of the trial that might affect the welfare or consent of participants to the EC, to a publicly accessible registry, and to other appropriate regulatory or advisory bodies. In addition, when new information is relevant to participants’ welfare, researchers must promptly inform all participants to whom the information applies (including former participants). Researchers must work with their ECs to determine which participants must be informed, and how the information should be conveyed.

For Health Canada (HC)’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100. Also see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

Per the G-FDR-0100, the collection, assessment, and reporting of AEs is a critical component of the conduct of any clinical trial. The assessment of the site AEs should be done by the qualified investigator (QI) or the delegated sub-investigator(s) for seriousness, expectedness, and causality determination, when they become aware. All SAEs should be reported immediately (after the QI reasonably becomes aware of the event) to the sponsor. The QI should also include an assessment of causality. In accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, the protocol may identify SAEs not requiring immediate reporting; for example, deaths or other events that are endpoints. Subsequent information should be submitted as a follow-up report, as necessary.

Sponsor Responsibilities

As delineated in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, the sponsor is required to expedite reports of ADRs to HC that meet these three (3) criteria: serious, unexpected, and having a suspected causal relationship. ADR reports that are expected or unexpected, but not serious, should not be reported to HC, but rather monitored and tracked by the sponsor. As specified in the G-CanadaCTApps, when evaluating whether an AE is serious and unexpected, the QI’s and sponsor’s determination of causality is important. Only serious and unexpected ADRs found to have a reasonable suspected causal relationship with the drug should be reported by the sponsor to HC.

Per the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, during a clinical trial, the sponsor is required to inform HC of any serious, unexpected ADR that has occurred inside or outside Canada. An ADR report must be filed in the following specified timelines:

When the ADR is neither fatal nor life-threatening, within 15 days after becoming aware of the information
When it is fatal or life-threatening, immediately when possible and, in any event, within seven (7) days after becoming aware of the information
Within eight (8) days after having informed HC of the ADR, submit a report that includes an assessment of the importance and implication of any findings

Other Safety Reports

The G-DSUR delineates that the development safety update report (DSUR) and the DSUR Checklist (CAN-38) should be provided when requested by HC. A DSUR may be submitted voluntarily to HC when important new safety information on a drug needs to be conveyed by a clinical trial sponsor. In these cases, a rationale/justification for the filing of the DSUR should be included in the cover letter. For additional details, see the G-DSUR.

The G-DSUR-CanUK describes the region-specific requirements for DSURs submitted to the regulatory authorities of Canada and the United Kingdom. This guidance applies to both marketed and non-marketed drugs that are used in clinical trials and applies to DSURs prepared by the manufacturer and/or marketing authorization holder of the investigational drug.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

As per the G-CanadaCTApps, all serious and unexpected ADRs should be reported individually to HC. According to CAN-48 (which Canada adopted pursuant to CAN-50), at a minimum, the report should include an identifiable patient, the name of a suspect medicinal product, an identifiable reporting source, and an event or outcome that can be identified as serious and unexpected and for which, in clinical investigation cases, there is a reasonable suspected causal relationship. The G-CanadaCTApps requires the sponsor to complete the expedited reporting form (CAN-5) and the CIOMS Form I (CAN-7) and fax them to the appropriate HC Directorate: BRDD Fax: 613-957-0364; PDD Fax: 613-941-2121.

Additionally, the G-DSUR indicates that HC recommends that DSURs in electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) format be submitted via the Common Electronic Submissions Gateway (CESG) (CAN-25). For information on eCTD format, refer to the ElecSubms. For technical questions on eCTD filings, contact ereview@hc-sc.gc.ca as instructed in the G-DSUR.

2.1 and 2.8

Notice, 1.2, and 2.4

Serious unexpected adverse drug reaction reporting

Chapter 11 (Article 11.8)

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.001 and C.05.014))

Efficacy guidelines

Progress Reporting

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

As per the AU-ICH-GCP, the G-NatlStmt, and the G-TrialsSOP, the investigator(s) is responsible for submitting progress reports to the ethics committee (EC) (known as Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia) annually, or more frequently if requested. The AU-ICH-GCP and the G-TrialsSOP state that if there are significant changes in trial conduct or safety, the investigator should submit a written report to the sponsor, the EC, and where applicable, the institution. The G-NatlStmt indicates that at regular periods (reflecting the degree of risk, and at least annually), researchers should provide reports to the relevant EC(s) and institution(s), including information on:

Progress to date
The security of project-related data and information
Compliance with the approved proposal
Compliance with any conditions of approval

According to the G-NatlStmt, progress report forms should be designed to collect information that can provide meaningful assistance to reviewers in determining whether continuation of ethics approval is warranted. See the G-NatlStmt for more details.

Final Report

AUS-88 indicates that for trials conducted under the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme, the CTA clinical trial completion advice form (AUS-58) is used to notify the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) after the trial has been completed at all sites. There is no fee for this notification. AUS-58 indicates that upon completion, the form may be emailed to the TGA at clinical.trials@tga.gov.au (preferred) or faxed to 02 6232 8112.

Per AUS-49, for trials conducted under the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme, a completion advice should be submitted through the TGA Business Services (TBS) webpage (AUS-36). The completion advice must include the date the trial was completed at all Australian sites, as well as the completion reason. AUS-87 further notes that there is no fee to submit a CTN completion. See AUS-49 for additional information on the completion advice.

The AU-ICH-GCP and the G-TrialsSOP indicate that the investigator should provide the EC with a final clinical study report. As per the G-TrialsSOP, the investigator must also notify the research governance officer that the trial has been terminated/closed. At the completion of the project, a report with the same information as described above for progress reports (per G-NatlStmt) must also be provided to the relevant EC(s) and institution(s), but it should include information on the outcome of the completed research.

Additionally, the TGA has adopted the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH)’s Topic E 3: Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports (AUS-81). For more information, see AUS-81.

Submitting a Completion Advice

4

SOP 05

Section 5 (Chapter 5.4)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

Pursuant to the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, investigators and sponsors share responsibility for submitting interim and annual reports on the status of a clinical trial. The investigator is required to provide annual progress reports to the institutional ethics committee (EC) and submit interim progress reports to the EC and Health Canada (HC) if there are any significant changes affecting the trial or risk to participants. The sponsor is required to submit annual reports (in the form of an updated Investigator’s Brochure (IB)) to HC. Also see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence. For HC’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

According to the G-TCPS2, investigators must report new information that may affect the welfare or consent of participants to the institutional EC, HC, and other appropriate regulatory or advisory entities. When new information is relevant to participants’ welfare, researchers must promptly inform all participants to whom the information applies (including former participants). Researchers should work with their ECs to determine which participants must be informed, and how the information should be conveyed. New information may comprise a range of issues, including, but not limited to:

Changes to the research design
Evidence of any new risks
Unanticipated issues that have possible health or safety consequences for participants
New information that decisively proves the benefits of one (1) intervention over another
New research findings, including relevant non-trial findings
Unanticipated problems
Closure of trials at other sites for reasons that may be relevant to the welfare or consent of participants in the ongoing trial

Final Report

While the CanadaFDR does not require submission of a final study report to HC, the CT-Rgstrn states that HC’s policy for reporting summary results aligns with international initiatives, including the Declaration of Helsinki (CAN-58). Sponsors should submit the summary results of their clinical trial within 12 months following primary study completion, which is the final study visit for collection of data on the primary outcome for the last participant in a global study, whether the clinical trial concluded according to the pre-specified protocol or stopped early. For clinical trials with more than one (1) primary outcome measure with different completion dates, the primary study completion is the date when data collection is completed for all primary outcome measures. In cases where submission of summary results within one (1) year of primary study completion will jeopardize the scientific integrity of the clinical trial, summary results may be submitted within one (1) year of study completion, which is the final study visit for collection of data on any remaining secondary outcome measures and adverse event information for the last participant in the global study, whether the clinical trial concluded according to the pre-specified protocol or stopped early. If a sponsor intends to apply for market authorization for the product studied or a new condition of use, the sponsor may defer submitting summary results until 30 calendar days after HC renders a decision on the application or the sponsor cancels or withdraws it, or up to 36 months following primary study completion, whichever is earlier. HC does not support deferral for products or new conditions of use that the sponsor does not intend to market or for which product development has stopped. Sponsors should submit the summary results of their clinical trial to the same registry where their trial is registered. (See Initiation, Agreements & Registration section for information on clinical trial registration.)

Per the G-CanadaCTApps, the sponsor should notify the HC Directorate when a clinical trial is completed or a clinical trial site is closed. A study is considered to be completed after the last participant globally completes the "end of study" visit as defined in the protocol. The "end of study visit" is the final visit for study-related tests and procedures, including the capture of any final potential study-related adverse events, and usually occurs after the participant has completed/discontinued study drug administration. The "end of study visit" is normally an in-person visit, but for some studies it can also be carried out over the telephone. There may be certain scenarios (e.g., gene therapies, drugs with very long half-lives) where a study may be ongoing well beyond the period of study treatment, i.e., where long-term safety monitoring and reporting would be required. The reporting requirements with regard to such long-term follow-up of safety are normally specified in the study protocol and agreed to between the sponsor and HC prior to the authorization of the clinical trial in Canada.

Reporting Results

2.8

Chapter 11 (Article 11.8)

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.012 and C.05.013))

Information on ICH guidelines implemented by Health Canada and Efficacy guidelines

Definition of Sponsor

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

ICH Harmonised Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (Effective January 13, 2026): adopted by TGA with a 12-month transition period through January 13, 2027 to provide stakeholders time to ensure full compliance. See the following TGA webpage for more information.

As per the AU-ICH-GCP and the G-TrialsSOP, a sponsor is defined as an individual, company, institution, or organization that takes responsibility for the initiation, management, and/or financing of a clinical trial.

In accordance with the AU-ICH-GCP, Australia permits a sponsor to transfer any or all of its trial-related duties and functions to a contract research organization (CRO). Any trial-related duties and functions transferred to a CRO should be specified in a written agreement, and the sponsor should ensure oversight of such transferred responsibilities. Any trial-related duties and functions not specifically transferred to and assumed by a CRO are retained by the sponsor. The sponsor retains overall responsibility for the trial data’s quality and integrity, as well as the conduct of the trial. As stated in the G-TrialsSOP, the sponsor is also responsible for ensuring that appropriate approvals are obtained prior to the commencement of the clinical trial, that conditions of any approvals are adhered to during the course of the clinical trial, and that the ethics principles of research merit and integrity, justice, beneficence, and respect are applied to the conduct of clinical trials.

According to the G-CTHandbook, if the investigator initiates and organizes the trial, the role of trial sponsor is assumed. If another party (such as a pharmaceutical company) provides the IP or other support for an investigator-led trial, that party is not required to assume the sponsor role.

As per the G-CTHandbook and the G-TrialsSOP, a sponsor must be an Australian entity.

Determine if the product is ‘unapproved’ and Role of trial sponsors

1.53 and 5.2

Terms

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

As per the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, a sponsor is defined as an individual, corporate body, institution, or organization that conducts a clinical trial. In accordance with the G-FDR-0100, a sponsor may transfer any or all of the sponsor's trial-related activities to a service provider in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. However, the ultimate responsibility for the sponsor's trial-related activities, including protection of participants' rights, safety, and well-being and reliability of the trial data, resides with the sponsor.

According to the CanadaFDR and G-CanadaCTApps, a sponsor may be domestic or foreign. A foreign sponsor is required to have a senior medical or scientific officer who is residing in Canada who will represent the sponsor, and sign and date the application and the clinical trial attestation form.

For HC’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

2.1

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.001, C.05.005, C.05.015))

Site/Investigator Selection

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

Overview

As set forth in the AU-ICH-GCP, the sponsor should select the investigator(s) and the institution(s) for the clinical trial, taking into account the appropriateness and availability of the study site and facilities. The sponsor must also ensure that the investigator(s) are qualified by training and experience. Prior to entering into an agreement with the investigator(s) and the institution(s) to conduct a study, the sponsor should provide the investigator(s) with the protocol and an investigator’s brochure.

According to the G-TrialsSOP, the principal investigator (PI) must ensure that all required staff who assist with the clinical trial are informed about and trained on the protocol, any investigational product (IP), and their research-related duties and functions. This can be in the form of an initiation meeting held by any communication means, including face-to-face, videoconference, telehealth, etc. The PI must also have sufficient time to properly conduct and complete the research within the specified period, as well as an adequate number of qualified staff and adequate facilities for the foreseen duration of the research. When a teletrial is being conducted, the PI, who is always at the primary site and never at the satellite site, remains responsible for the trial across the cluster. For more information on PI site staff training and qualification requirements, see the G-TrialsSOP.

See AUS-64 for additional clinical trial and researcher resources.

Research Governance

The G-NatlStmt indicates that institutions must ensure that any human research for which they are responsible is designed, reviewed, approved, authorized, conducted, and monitored in accordance with the G-CodeConduct and the G-NatlStmt, along with any policies that they have developed that form part of their research governance framework. Each institution should be satisfied that the human research for which it is responsible meets both relevant ethical standards and scholarly or scientific standards, and ensure that those conducting the research (i) are either adequately experienced and qualified, or supervised; (ii) understand the need to assess risks to their own safety and that of participants; and (iii) are aware they are free to withdraw from research on conscientious grounds. Institutions should publish (such as on their website) clear policies and procedures for ethics review and approval and institutional authorization of research. They may establish their own processes for ethics review of research or use the review processes of another institution or external ethics review body.

Per AUS-63, the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care developed the National Clinical Trials Governance Framework (AUS-63), which embeds clinical trials into routine health service provisions and strengthens the clinical and corporate governance arrangements for parties that deliver clinical trials. All jurisdictions have agreed to implement the framework in health service organizations, meaning the organizations will be assessed concurrently for clinical and corporate services and clinical trial service provisions. The framework describes the systems and processes that should be in place to implement an effective governance system considering local needs, values, and the context in which services are provided. For more information about implementation timing and assessments under the National Safety and Quality Health Service (NSQHS) standards, see AUS-63.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

As per the G-CTHandbook and the G-TrialsSOP, a sponsor must be an Australian entity.

Data Safety Monitoring Boards

G-DSMB indicates that the sponsor may establish a Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) (also referred to as Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs)) to review accumulating trial data in order to monitor the progress of a trial. The role of a DSMB is to provide advice on safety and/or trial conduct issues by making recommendations to the sponsor or trial steering committee on whether to continue, modify, or stop a trial. Per the AU-ICH-GCP, the DSMB should have written standard operating procedures (SOPs) and maintain written records of all its meetings.

According to the G-TrialsSOP, the sponsor may utilize a DSMB or independent individuals (e.g., a medical monitor) to:

Review accruing trial safety data in either an unblinded or blinded manner to assess treatment exposure
Access, assess, and review emerging efficacy data for the trial
Assess the balance of risks and benefits within the trial
Document the outcome of these reviews

Additionally, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has adopted the European Medicines Agency (EMA)’s Guideline on Data Monitoring Committees (AUS-78), which discusses the key issues involved when sponsors include DSMBs as part of their trial management. For more information, see AUS-78.

Multicenter Studies

As delineated in the AU-ICH-GCP, in the event of a multicenter trial, the sponsor must ensure that:

All investigators conduct the trial in strict compliance with the protocol that was agreed to by the sponsor and the TGA (if required), and that was approved by the ethics committee (EC)
The case report forms (CRFs) capture the required data at all multicenter trial sites
The responsibilities of coordinating investigator(s) and the other participating investigators are documented prior to the start of the trial
All investigators are given instructions on following the protocol, on complying with a uniform set of standards to assess clinical and laboratory findings, and on completing the CRFs
Communication among investigators is facilitated

As noted in the G-TeletrialPrncpls, Australian jurisdictions agree that “traditionally” multicenter clinical trials assume one (1) PI per geographic site, differing from teletrials. However, for the purposes of teletrials, multicenter trials may include some sites that have satellite sites supervised under teletrial guidance, including the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (COSA)’s Australasian Tele-trial Model (AUS-2), the G-TeletrialPrncpls, and the G-TrialsSOP. Sponsor responsibilities in teletrials, as described in the G-TrialsSOP, are discussed throughout the Australia profile alongside other clinical trial regulations and guidance. See each section of the Sponsorship topic for additional applicable information.

National Clinical Trials Governance Framework and User Guide

What is a DSMB and what is its role?

Role of trial sponsors

5

Introduction, Terms, SOP 03, and SOP 12

Section 5 (Chapter 5.1)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Overview

Per the CanadaFDR and the G-FDR-0100, every sponsor must ensure that a clinical trial is conducted in accordance with good clinical practice (GCP) and must also ensure that:

At each clinical trial site, there is no more than one (1) qualified investigator (QI)
At each clinical trial site, medical care and medical decisions, in respect of the clinical trial, are under the supervision of the QI
Each individual involved in the conduct of the clinical trial is qualified by education, training, and experience to perform the tasks

The G-FDR-0100 explains that the sponsor’s selection and oversight of QIs and service providers are fundamental features of the oversight process. As stated in Mdrn-CTFrmwrk, a "qualified investigator" may be:

A physician or dentist who is authorized under CanadaFDR to act as a qualified investigator
An individual who has the education, training, and experience required to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements, despite not meeting the regulatory requirement to be a physician or dentist in CanadaFDR

Mdrn-CTFrmwrk further specifies that in clinical trials where the investigator is not a physician or dentist, medical decisions with respect to the trial that are outside the licensed scope of practice of the investigator must be made by a qualified physician or dentist on the clinical trial team who is:

Licensed to practice in the province or territory where the site is located
Responsible for medical oversight and participant care, including medical decisions with respect to the trial

In accordance with the G-CanadaCTApps, prior to initiating a clinical trial, the sponsor must ensure that a Qualified Investigator Undertaking (QIU) form (CAN-37) (or similar documentation that meets the CanadaFDR requirements) has been completed and kept on file by the sponsor; it should be retained by the sponsor for 15 years. Per the CanadaFDR, the form certifies that the QI will conduct the clinical trial in accordance with GCP, and, if the trial is discontinued, will immediately inform trial participants and the institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as Research Ethics Boards in Canada) of the discontinuance, and the reason for it. (See the Submission Content section for additional information on clinical trial application requirements). For HC’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

Per G-Dcntrl, for clinical trials with decentralized elements, sponsors and QIs should assess whether decentralized locations have sufficient funding, time, equipment, and staff to support trial conduct that complies with GCP. Considerations include local care and institutional practices, provincial or territorial requirements, training needs, and coordination and communication across locations. The main location and remote locations supervised by one (1) QI constitute a single clinical trial site. The main location must be identified on the Clinical Trial Site Information (CTSI) form (CAN-6) and receive EC approval before trial initiation.

For additional guidance on investigator selection, qualifications, and training, see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Per CAN-11, the Canadian Clinical Trials Asset Map (CCTAM) (CAN-26) is a pan-Canadian research inventory of investigators, clinical research sites, and other resources across the country. Sponsors can use CCTAM to identify potential sites and investigators, which may expedite study feasibility and start-up timelines. To view the CCTAM, the user must register and create an account.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

According to the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, a sponsor may be domestic or foreign. A foreign sponsor is required to have a senior medical or scientific officer residing in Canada to represent the sponsor, and sign and date the application and the clinical trial attestation form.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

The G-TCPS2 provides the following considerations to help researchers and ECs determine whether a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) (known as an Independent Data-Monitoring Committee in Canada) is needed:

The magnitude of foreseeable research-attributable harms to participants
Whether the circumstances of the participants make them vulnerable in the context of research
The feasibility of interim data analysis
The complexity of the study
Conflicts of interest

Also see CAN-52 for ICH guidance on DSMBs.

Multicenter Studies

The CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, require the sponsor to complete and retain the Research Ethics Board (REB) Attestation (CAN-8) and Qualified Investigator Undertaking (QIU) (CAN-37) forms at each trial site, while submitting in electronic format CAN-6 to the appropriate HC Directorate for each trial site.

The G-TCPS2, which sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ECs, provides that in multi-site clinical trials, a lead principal investigator (PI) is a designated PI who is responsible for the ethical conduct of the study for all sites. The lead PI is responsible for communicating any changes to the study, new information, and/or unanticipated events to the EC, to the sponsor, and to local site PIs.

Per CAN-50, Canada has implemented the ICH Guidance E17: Multi-Regional Clinical Trials (CAN-40), which describes general principles for the planning and design of multi-regional clinical trials with the aim of increasing the acceptability of these trials in global regulatory submissions. HC recognizes that the scope and subject matter of current HC guidance may not be entirely consistent with ICH guidance. In such circumstances, HC-implemented ICH guidance takes precedence.

2.1 and 2.7.2

Design considerations, Single and multi-site clinical trials, and Identifying clinical trial sites

Chapter 11 (Article 11.7)

2

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.005))

Canadian Clinical Trials Asset Map

Information on ICH guidelines implemented by Health Canada and Efficacy guidelines

Insurance & Compensation

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

Insurance

The AU-ICH-GCP and the G-NatlStmt state that the sponsor should provide insurance in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. In addition, according to the G-NatlStmt, institutions must ensure that sponsors have insurance arrangements in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. The federal documents cited here do not explicitly require insurance.

Per the G-GovHndbk, the institution and investigator are responsible for managing risks of any proposed research, including providing appropriate insurance coverage.

Compensation

Injury or Death

According to the G-NatlStmt, institutions must ensure that sponsors have indemnity and compensation arrangements in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, and that arrangements are in place to compensate trial participants for harm resulting from negligence in research. The AU-ICH-GCP further indicates that the sponsor must explain to participants the compensation and/or treatment available to them in the event of trial-related injuries. The federal documents cited here do not explicitly require indemnity.

The G-TrialsSOP states that if the investigator is notified or becomes aware that a trial participant intends to make a claim against the institution or sponsor for injuries arising as a result of participating in a clinical trial undertaken at the institution (or any of the satellite sites under supervision by the institution in a teletrial), the investigator must promptly notify the following parties in writing that such an action is intended:

The institution’s authority
The coordinating principal investigator (CPI)/principal investigator (PI)/associate investigator, as relevant
The sponsor

In addition, if the institution is notified or becomes aware that a trial participant intends to make a claim for compensation against the institution or sponsor for injuries arising as a result of participating in a clinical trial undertaken at the institution (or any of the satellite sites under supervision by the institution in a teletrial), the institution must promptly notify the institution’s insurer in writing that such an action is intended.

See AUS-39 for indemnity and injury compensation guidelines for commercially-sponsored trials.

Trial Participation

The G-NatlStmt states that it is generally appropriate to reimburse participants for the costs associated with taking part in research including travel, accommodations, and parking. Sometimes participants may also be paid for time involved. However, payment may not be disproportionate to the time involved, or include other incentives that encourage participants to take risks. Further, payment or reimbursement decisions should consider customs and practices of the community in which the trial will be conducted.

According to the G-ResearchPayment, any proposal for payment of participants should be considered by the ethics committee (EC) reviewing the research. The EC should be provided with a payment plan that includes:

A rationale for the proposed payments
The method and timing of any disbursements, including how they have been calculated, and
Information about how prospective participants will be advised of the provision of payment

Payment of participants is ethically appropriate if it is equitable and proportionate to the burden of the research, and does not:

Undermine a participant’s capacity to provide voluntary and informed consent
Unduly influence a participant to accept a risk or burden that is greater than they would otherwise accept in everyday living or to compromise their fundamental values
Unduly influence a participant to make false representations about or conceal information that is relevant to their eligibility for the research, their contribution to the research, or the risks related to participation

To minimize the likelihood of a payment acting as an undue influence, the G-ResearchPayment further indicates that payment of participants should generally be limited to reimbursement of documented expenses and remuneration for time and inconvenience. Payment may be offered as an incentive to participate in cases where the research offers little or no benefit to individuals or where the research requires the participation of target populations that are difficult to recruit. In these cases, adequate processes must be in place to promote valid consent. For more information and examples of payment models, see the G-ResearchPayment.

According to the AU-ICH-GCP, payments to a participant should be prorated and not wholly contingent on completion of the trial by the participant.

Post-Trial Access

Per the G-NatlStmt, researchers must make clear to the participant if there are any intended therapeutic benefits from the trial, and if the treatment will be available only through participation in the trial. In addition, researchers must make it clear to the participant whether they will have access to the treatment or information they received after completion of the trial.

Guidance Statements

IV

3, 4, 5, and 8

SOP 05

Sections 2 (Chapter 2.2), 3 (Chapter 3.1), and 5 (Chapter 5.1)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Insurance

The CanadaFDR does not require the sponsor to provide insurance coverage to investigators, institutions, or trial participants. However, the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, guides sponsors on providing insurance. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Compensation

Injury or Death

The Canadian regulations do not require compensation for trial participants in the event of trial-related injuries or death. However, the G-TCPS2, which sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ethics committees (ECs) (known as Research Ethics Boards in Canada), provides that, during informed consent, participants should be given information about any payments, including compensation for injury.

Trial Participation

The Canadian regulations do not require compensation for trial participation. However, as per the G-TCPS2, the informed consent form (ICF) should contain a statement with a description of the anticipated prorated payment to the participant(s) that is reasonably expected for participation in the trial. Any compensation or incentive to participants must not be so excessive that it may unfairly influence participants or cause them to overlook important facts and risks.

Also see CAN-52, which guides sponsors on providing compensation.

Chapter 3 (Article 3.2)

Information on ICH guidelines implemented by Health Canada and Efficacy guidelines

Risk & Quality Management

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As per the AU-ICH-GCP, the sponsor should implement a system to manage quality throughout all stages of the trial process, focusing on trial activities essential to ensuring participant protection and the reliability of trial results. The quality management system should use a risk-based approach that includes:

Identifying processes and data that are critical to ensure participant protection and the reliability of trial results during protocol development
Identifying risks to critical trial processes and data
Evaluating the identified risks against existing risk controls
Deciding which risks to reduce and/or accept
Documenting quality management activities and communicating to those involved in or affected by these activities
Periodically reviewing risk control measures to ascertain whether the implemented quality management activities are effective and relevant
Describing the quality management approach implemented in the trial and summarizing important deviations from the predefined quality tolerance limits and remedial actions taken in the clinical study report

The G-RBMgmtMntring provides further guidance on the application of risk-based trial processes, particularly as a reference to sponsors of non-commercial trials.

The AU-ICH-GCP further indicates that the sponsor is responsible for implementing and maintaining quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) systems with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure that trials are conducted and data generated, recorded, and reported in compliance with the protocol, the AU-ICH-GCP, and the applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor is responsible for obtaining agreement from all involved parties to ensure direct access to all trial-related sites, source data/documents, reports for monitoring and auditing purposes, and inspection by domestic and foreign regulatory authorities. The sponsor should implement a system to manage quality throughout all stages of the trial process, and QC should be applied to each stage of data handling to ensure that all data are reliable and have been correctly processed. Any agreements between the sponsor and investigator, or with any other parties involved in the clinical trial, should be written, either within the protocol or in a separate agreement.

As per AUS-74, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has adopted certain guidelines released by the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regarding quality management and technical aspects of clinical trials. See each of these documents for additional details:

ICH Guideline E8 (R1) on General Considerations for Clinical Studies (AUS-76)
Guideline on Strategies to Identify and Mitigate Risks for First-in-Human Clinical Trials with Investigational Medicinal Products (AUS-77)
Guideline on Clinical Trials in Small Populations (AUS-79)
ICH E11(R1) Guideline on Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products in the Pediatric Population (AUS-80)
Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations - Guidance for Industry (AUS-82)
Considerations for the Use of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products - Guidance for Industry (AUS-83)
ICH Topic E 10 Choice of Control Group in Clinical Trials (AUS-84)
ICH Topic E 9 - Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials (AUS-85)

See AUS-74 for more information on, as well as a list of, the international scientific guidelines adopted by the TGA.

Responsible Research Conduct

The G-CodeConduct outlines principles, responsibilities, and expectations for institutions and researchers to facilitate responsible research practices. Australian institutions must establish and maintain good governance and management practices for responsible research conduct. In addition, researchers must comply with the relevant laws, regulations, disciplinary standards, ethics guidelines, and institutional policies related to responsible research conduct. Compliance with the G-CodeConduct is a requirement to receiving funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) or the Australian Research Council (ARC).

The G-CodeBreaches describes the preferred model for institutions to use to investigate and manage potential code breaches, to determine any corrective actions, and when a finding of research misconduct may be made. The Australian Research Integrity Committee uses the G-CodeBreaches as a guide for reviewing how NHMRC- and ARC-funded institutions manage potential code breaches.

The G-RptBreachGCP requires the sponsor to notify the reviewing ethics committee (EC) (Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) in Australia) within seven (7) days of confirming a serious breach of good clinical practice (GCP). A serious breach is defined as one that is likely to affect to a significant degree: the safety or rights of a trial participant or the reliability and robustness of the data generated in the trial. Sponsors should also develop documented processes for managing serious breaches. The G-TrialsSOP notes that although all deviations or breaches of the protocol must be reported by the investigator to the sponsor, only serious breaches must be reported to the EC. Serious breaches should also be reported by the principal investigator (PI) to their institution, as they may have an impact on medico-legal risk, the responsible conduct of research, or adherence to contractual obligations.

The supplementary guidance G-RptBreachGCP should be read alongside the G-CodeConduct and the G-CodeBreaches.

Monitoring Requirements

As part of its QA system, the AU-ICH-GCP notes that the sponsor should ensure the trial is monitored and audited. The purpose of the audit should be to evaluate trial conduct and compliance with the protocol, SOPs, the AU-ICH-GCP, and other applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor should appoint auditors to review the clinical trial. The sponsor should ensure that the auditors are qualified by training and experience, and the auditor’s qualifications should be documented. The sponsor must also ensure that the audit is conducted in accordance with its own SOPs and that the auditor’s observations are documented.

Per the G-TrialsSOP, the PI must ensure audit/inspection readiness throughout the study, have oversight of any audit or inspection of the trial at both primary and satellite sites, and ensure any deficiencies identified through audit or inspection are actively managed to ensure continuous improvement.

The TGR further states that the sponsor must provide a written assurance to comply with any trial-related requests by an authorized TGA officer(s), which includes allowing inspection of clinical trial sites. The PI is required to comply with requests and answer any questions the authorized officer(s) may have. According to the G-GCP-Inspect, clinical trial sites that have been notified of a GCP inspection should prepare for the inspection by:

Ensuring their authorizing institution, trial sponsor, and clinical team are advised of the inspection (the G-GCP-Inspect notes that although the TGA does not require that the sponsor be informed, there is generally a requirement in the contract between the site and the sponsor to share this type of information)
Ensuring access for the inspectors to clinical trial records and source documents is arranged for the time of the inspection
Ensuring their IT processes allow them to grant view-only access to the inspectors

The G-GCP-Inspect adds that ECs and trial sponsors are not included in the scope of the TGA’s GCP inspection program. The site PI can invite other personnel, including the sponsor and institution/EC representative(s), to attend the inspection opening and closing meeting. See the Scope of Assessment section, the G-GCP-Inspect, and AUS-90 for more information on TGA inspections.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

As per the G-CTHandbook, procedures following the TGA’s revocation of approval under the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme or a breach of the conditions of the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme would be determined on a case-by-case basis based on the impact on participants and their ongoing safety. The AU-ICH-GCP states that if a trial is prematurely terminated or suspended, the sponsor should promptly inform the investigator(s), institution(s), the EC, and the TGA. The sponsor should provide the reason(s) for the termination or suspension. Additionally, as indicated in the G-CTHandbook, the sponsor must notify all sites in the case of a multicenter trial. A lead EC in a multicenter study will need to liaise with the sites and the sponsor when determining which, if any, are affected and the actions they need to apply.

According to the G-TrialsSOP, if a trial is prematurely terminated or suspended for any reason, the investigator must:

Promptly inform the sponsor, EC, research governance officer, associate investigator, any satellite site, and the TGA by providing a detailed written explanation of the premature termination or suspension
Promptly inform the trial participant and the participant’s primary care physician where the trial participant has consented, of the termination or suspension and, if applicable, of the investigational product (IP) and dose that was administered
Assure appropriate therapy and follow up for the participant’s continued care

As per the G-NatlStmt, if an institution or EC considers that suspension of research is necessary, the instruction to stop should come from the management of the institution. Where ethics approval for a research project is suspended:

The institution must ensure that the researcher promptly suspends the research and makes arrangements to meet the needs of participants, such as ensuring that appropriate counselling support or the provision of standard care continues
The research may not be resumed unless: (i) the research is modified to provide sufficient protection or participants or address the concerns that led to the suspension; or (ii) the researcher establishes to the satisfaction of the EC that continuation of the research will not compromise participants’ welfare; and (iii) the institution authorizes the continuation of the research

The G-NatlStmt further indicates that if ethics approval for a research project is withdrawn, the researcher must promptly halt the research, make arrangements to meet the needs of participants, and notify the institution that these steps have been taken.

Preamble, Responsibilities of institutions, and Responsibilities of researchers

Introduction

Responsibilities under the CTN and CTA schemes

5

SOPs 02, 05, and 13

Section 5 (Chapter 5.4)

About the Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Inspection Program and Preparing for an Inspection

Background and Scope

Part 3 (12AB and 12AC)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As stated in the CanadaFDR, the sponsor must ensure that a clinical trial is conducted in accordance with good clinical practice and must ensure, among other things, that the trial is scientifically sound and clearly described in a protocol; the trial and use of the drug comply with the protocol and the CanadaFDR; and systems and procedures that assure the quality of every aspect of the trial are implemented. Regarding quality, the G-FDR-0100 explains that the sponsor is responsible for the establishment of a quality management system consisting of documented procedures (standard operating procedures (SOPs), protocol procedures, etc.) to assure the quality of every aspect of a clinical trial. The range and extent of oversight measures should fit the purpose and be tailored to the complexity of and risks associated with the trial. Quality management includes the design and implementation of efficient clinical trial protocols, including tools and procedures for trial conduct (including data collection and management), to ensure the protection of participants' rights, safety, and well-being, and the reliability of trial results. The sponsor should adopt a proportionate and risk-based approach to quality management, which involves incorporating quality into the design of the clinical trial (i.e., quality by design) and identifying those factors that are likely to have a meaningful impact on participants' rights, safety, and well-being, and the reliability of the results. The sponsor should describe the quality management approach in the clinical trial report.

In addition, G-FDR-0100 states that risks to critical-to-quality factors should be managed proactively and adjusted when new or unanticipated issues arise once the trial has begun. Risk review is a key component to risk-based quality management systems, and Health Canada (HC) expects that sponsors will be able to demonstrate that risk control measures are periodically reviewed and remain effective and relevant, considering emerging knowledge and experience throughout the trial.

Per G-Dcntrl, for trials with decentralized elements, sponsors and qualified investigators (QIs) should collaborate with trial sites and service providers to implement a quality management system covering decentralized activities and supporting compliance with HC regulations and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. Processes should identify, evaluate, control, communicate, and review risks affecting participant safety or the reliability of results, including risks arising from decentralized elements. Additional training, continuing quality checks, and competency assessments may be needed beyond SOPs. See G-Dcntrl for additional details.

Further, CAN-50, Canada implements the ICH Guidance E8(R1): General Considerations for Clinical Studies (CAN-49), which provides guidance on conduct during the clinical trial. Other relevant ICH guidance adopted per CAN-50 are the guidance on statistical principles for clinical trials (CAN-53) and the addendum on estimands and sensitivity analysis (CAN-39). The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Monitoring Requirements

As indicated in the G-FDR-0100, the sponsor should determine the appropriate extent and nature of monitoring based on identified risks. Factors to consider include the objective, purpose, design, complexity, blinding, number of trial participants, investigational product, current knowledge of the safety profile, and endpoints of the trial. Monitoring may include site monitoring (performed onsite and/or remotely) and centralized monitoring. The frequency of monitoring activities should also be determined based on identified risks. Monitoring activities and their frequency should be modified as appropriate using knowledge gained. Centralized monitoring processes provide additional monitoring capabilities that can complement and reduce the extent and/or frequency of site monitoring or be used on its own. Use of centralized data analytics can help identify systemic or site-specific issues, including protocol noncompliance and potential unreliable data. In addition to monitoring, a sponsor should perform audits in a manner that is proportionate to the risk associated with the conduct of the trial. See CAN-52 for additional guidance on sponsor responsibilities involving monitoring and auditing.

Further, per the G-FDR-0100, it is critical to include processes that will be followed to address situations of non-compliance, as well as to identify events that would require either a review or revision of the monitoring plan. HC expects these components to be clearly documented in risk-based monitoring plans. The sponsor should describe the requirements of monitoring reports (including their content and frequency) in the standard procedures. Reports of site and/or centralized monitoring should be provided to the sponsor in a timely manner for review and follow up. When needed, the report should describe findings requiring escalation for action and resolution. The sponsor should decide on the appropriate action to be taken, and these decisions and the resolution of the actions involved, where needed, should be recorded. For additional information on monitoring reports, refer to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA)’s Guidance for Industry: A Risk-Based Approach to Monitoring of Clinical Investigations Questions and Answers.

Next, per the G-FDR-0100, if it is discovered that noncompliance significantly affects or has the potential to significantly affect human participant protection or reliability of trial results, the sponsor should perform a root cause analysis, implement appropriate corrective and preventive actions, and confirm their adequacy, unless otherwise justified. Where the sponsor identifies issues that are likely to significantly impact the rights, safety, or well-being of the trial participant(s) or the reliability of trial results (i.e., serious noncompliance), the sponsor should notify the HC and the institutional ethics committee (known as Research Ethics Boards in Canada).

Per the HCNotice-ICH-E19, HC adopted and implemented ICH guidance on selective safety data collection in specific late stage pre-approval or post-approval clinical trials (CAN-15). Selective safety data collection refers to the recording of certain data by investigators in case report forms. It does not affect the monitoring and clinical care of individual trial participants or documentation of their adverse events in medical records. See the HCNotice-ICH-E19 and the CAN-15 for more information.

Per G-Inspections, regulated parties (sponsors, qualified investigators, contract research organizations, and any other party involved in the conduct of clinical trials) have mandatory responsibilities under the CanadaFDA and can be inspected. Foreign entities that conduct regulated activities in Canada, or in relation to a product imported in Canada, are also subject to Canadian law. During an inspection or a compliance verification, a regulated party is required to provide all reasonable assistance and information necessary for the HC inspector to perform their duties, including providing evidence that its facility, equipment, and practices and procedures meet the applicable requirements. As indicated in G-Dcntrl, sponsors should oversee decentralized elements in clinical trials across all locations, including remote locations, with monitoring directed toward potential safety concerns, data quality, and reliable results. See the Risk-Insp for HC’s risk classification guide for observations related to inspections of clinical trials of human drugs.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

The CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps state that if a trial is prematurely terminated or suspended, the sponsor should inform HC no later than 15 days after the termination or suspension. In addition, the sponsor should provide HC with the reason(s) for the termination or suspension and its impact on the proposed or ongoing clinical trials related to the drug in Canada by the sponsor. The sponsor should also promptly notify the qualified investigators of the termination or suspension and advise them in writing of any potential risks to the participants’ health. Further, the G-CanadaCTApps states that the sponsor’s notification to HC should include confirmation that the sale or importation of the drug to the discontinued sites has been stopped and that reasonable measures to ensure the return of all unused quantities of the drug will be taken. This notification must also be submitted for premature discontinuation of a clinical trial or clinical trial site outside Canada where there are ongoing trials with the drug in Canada. See G-FDR-0100 for additional information and interpretation of discontinuation, suspension, and cancellation. CAN-52 also provides guidance on premature termination or suspension.

2.8.1

Managing risk and Quality management systems

Discontinuation, Suspension and Cancellation, and Good Clinical Practices

2 and 4

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.007-008, C.05.010, and C.05.015))

Purpose and Scope, and Glossary

Information on ICH guidelines implemented by Health Canada and Efficacy guidelines

Data & Records Management

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

Electronic Data Processing System

When using electronic trial data handling systems, the sponsor must ensure and document that the electronic data processing system conforms to its established requirements for completeness, accuracy, reliability, and consistent intended performance, and that standard operating procedures (SOPs) are maintained for using these systems. Refer to the AU-ICH-GCP for additional information.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has adopted the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA)’s Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations - Guidance for Industry (AUS-82). For more information, see AUS-82.

Records Management

According to the G-CodeConduct and the G-DataInfoMgt, institutions must provide access to facilities for the safe and secure storage and management of research data, records, and primary materials.

The G-DataInfoMgt requires that institutional policy include guidance for managing research data and primary materials that addresses the following:

Ownership, stewardship, and control
Storage, retention, and disposal
Safety, security, and confidentiality
Access by interested parties

Furthermore, institutional policies on ownership of, and access to, databases and archives must require that:

Researchers are informed of relevant confidentiality agreements and restrictions on the use of research data
Computing systems are secure
Information technology personnel understand their responsibilities for network security and access control
Those holding primary material, including electronic material, understand their responsibilities for security and access

The G-CodeConduct and the G-DataInfoMgt further state that researchers must retain clear, accurate, secure, and complete records of all research including research data and primary materials. Additionally, the G-NatlStmt indicates that when multiple researchers are collaborating on the collection, storage, and/or analysis of data or information, they should agree to the arrangements for custodianship, storage, retention, and destruction of those materials, as well as the rights of access, rights to analyze/use and re-use the data or information, and the right to produce research outputs based upon them.

According to the G-TrialsSOP, the investigator must maintain adequate source documents and trial records, including all key observations on each of the trial participants. The investigator must also store all trial related documents in a study master file (SMF) and take measures to prevent accidental or premature destruction of these documents. In the case of a teletrial, the SMF is stored at the primary site, and the principal investigator (PI) must have control of all essential documents and records generated by the investigator(s), institution, and satellite site(s) before, during, and after the trial. The PI must also establish the maintenance rules of the SMF and relationship between the primary site’s SMF and any satellite site study files. For more information on the SMF, see the G-TrialsSOP.

As set forth in the annotated AU-ICH-GCP, the TGA requires that the sponsor retain records for 15 years following the completion of a clinical trial. However, product liability is the overriding consideration, and the sponsor should be able to produce records at any time, including possibly beyond the life of a product, in the event of an adverse event claim. The sponsor should inform the investigator(s) and the institution(s) in writing when trial-related records are no longer needed.

The TGA has adopted the European Medicines Agency (EMA)’s Guideline on the Content, Management and Archiving of the Clinical Master File (Paper and/or Electronic) (AUS-75). For more information on the clinical trial master file, see AUS-75.

Data Management Plan

According to the G-NatlStmt and the G-DataInfoMgt, researchers should create a data management plan, which should be developed as early as possible in the research process and should include details regarding:

Physical, network, system security, and any other technological security measures
Policies and procedures
Contractual and licensing arrangements and confidentiality agreements
Training for members of the project team and others, as appropriate
The form in which the data or information will be stored
The purposes for which the data or information will be used and/or disclosed
The conditions under which access to the data or information may be granted to others
What information from the data management plan, if any, needs to be communicated to potential participants

The G-NatlStmt states that in the data management plan, researchers should also clarify whether they will seek extended or unspecified consent for future research, or permission from a review body to waive the requirement for consent. In addition, the security arrangements specified in the plan should be proportional to the risks of the research project and the sensitivity of the information.

In accordance with the G-NatlStmt, researchers must comply with all relevant legal and regulatory requirements that pertain to the data or information collected, used, or disclosed as well as the conditions of the consent provided by participants. Data, information, and biospecimens used in research should be disposed of in a manner that is safe and secure, consistent with the consent obtained and any legal requirements, and appropriate to the research design.

The G-NatlStmt indicates that in the absence of justifiable ethical reasons and to promote access to the benefits of research, researchers should collect and store data, or information generated by research projects, in such a way that they can be used in future research projects. A justification must be provided when a researcher believes there are valid reasons for not making data or information accessible. More details are provided in the G-NatlStmt.

In addition, for details related to secondary use and sharing of data or information, see the G-NatlStmt.

Preamble, Responsibilities of Institutions, and Responsibilities of Researchers

5

Responsibilities of Institutions and Responsibilities of Researchers

SOPs 07 and 08

Section 3 (Chapter 3.1)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Electronic Data Processing System

The G-FDR-0100 states that systems and processes that aid in data capture, management, and analyses, as well as those that help ensure the quality of the information generated from the clinical trial, should fit the purpose of the trial, capture the data required by the protocol, and be implemented in a way that is proportionate to the risks to participants and the importance of acquired data. Quality should be addressed in the design or adaptation of electronic systems for clinical trial purposes to ensure the integrity of relevant trial data. Any electronic system used to capture, process, manage, and/or archive clinical trial information should be adequately validated, and evidence of validation should be retained and readily available for inspection by Health Canada (HC) inspectors. The approach for validation should be based on a risk assessment that considers the intended use of the system; the purpose and importance of the data/record that are collected/generated, maintained, and retained in the system; and the potential of the system to affect the well-being, rights, and safety of trial participants and reliability of trial results. The responsibilities of the sponsor, qualified investigator (QI), and other parties with respect to the use of these computerized systems should be clear, and the users should be provided with training in their use. The sponsor should periodically review the risk control measures to ascertain whether the implemented systems remain effective and relevant, considering experience and emerging knowledge.

Per the G-FDR-0100, any modifications or additions made to the electronic system (for example software upgrades or migration of data) can impact its intended functions by altering the quality of validated applications and the system itself. This may affect the integrity of electronic information and the reliability of the system. Therefore, adequate documented assessment and approval of changes to hardware or software during the clinical trial are required. The impact of such a change should be evaluated and documented, and partial validation of some components of the electronic system may be required.

G-Dcntrl states that computerized systems and digital health technologies used in decentralized activities should be suitable for their intended use and validated through a risk-based approach consistent with the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. Sponsors should address data transfer integrity, security, interoperability, audit trails, and cybersecurity, with documented procedures and training supporting system development, maintenance, and use. See G-Dcntrl for additional details.

For additional information on computerized system validation and electronic records, see CAN-52. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Records Management

As set forth in the CanadaFDR and the CanadaFDR1024, the sponsor must record, handle, and store all trial-related information to allow complete and accurate reporting, interpretation, and verification. The CanadaFDR requires the sponsor to maintain all trial-related records for a period of 15 years. Per the G-FDR-0100, the electronic system should allow for the retrieval of records and the generation of complete and accurate paper copies of the electronic source data. The system should provide audit trails for the entire 15-year record retention period. Records created, maintained, and processed by outsourced systems are subject to the same requirements as the data/records generated by company-owned systems.

Pursuant to CanadaFDR1024, the sponsor must submit requested records to HC within 48 hours if safety concerns arise. Additionally, to facilitate inspection of a site, the sponsor must submit information to HC within seven (7) days of a request. Per CAN-8, an attestation must be completed by the institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as Research Ethics Boards in Canada) that reviewed and approved the clinical trial. The completed attestation must be retained by the clinical trial sponsor for a period of 15 years. The attestation should not be submitted to HC unless requested.

G-Dcntrl states that records of agreements and contracts (paper or electronic) must be available or accessible from the main location of the clinical trial site. Per the Mdrn-CTFrmwrk, the sponsor is responsible for obtaining and retaining records for all EC approvals that may be required for participating sites, in accordance with applicable local requirements. The sponsor must retain records of all approvals for verification during clinical trial inspections. To meet this requirement, the sponsor must maintain complete and accurate records demonstrating EC approval for research undertaken at a clinical trial site.

Also see CAN-52 for additional guidance.

Requirements and oversight for digital systems and Agreements

Labeling and Records

1

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.012))

Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement

Information on ICH guidelines implemented by Health Canada and Efficacy guidelines

Personal Data Protection

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Responsible Parties

Per AUS-70, the PrivacyAct regulates how certain health service providing organizations collect and handle personal information, including health information. It also includes provisions that generally allow an individual to access information held about them.

According to the PrivacyAct, agencies and organizations as defined in the PrivacyAct must comply with the Act and the Australian Privacy Principles (APP), found in Schedule 1, and are referred to as APP entities.

Data Protection

Per the PrivacyAct’s APP, an APP entity must have a clearly expressed and up-to-date policy about the management of personal information by the entity. Individuals must have the option of not identifying themselves or of using a pseudonym, and an APP entity must not collect sensitive information about an individual unless the individual consents to the collection of the information.

The APP outline further requirements for the consideration of personal information privacy; the collection of personal information; dealing with personal information; the integrity of personal information; and access to, and correction of, personal information. For the full list of APP, see Schedule 1 of the PrivacyAct. Additionally, see the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)’s guidelines on the APP (G-APP) for more information.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

The PrivacyAct’s APP indicate that if an APP entity holds personal information about an individual that was collected for a particular purpose, the entity must not use or disclose the information for another purpose unless consent is obtained from the individual. There are limited exceptions to this requirement, which can be found in Schedule 1 of the PrivacyAct.

AUS-70 notes that in certain circumstances, the PrivacyAct permits the handling of health information and personal information for health and medical research purposes, where it is impracticable for researchers to obtain individuals' consent, recognizing: the need to protect health information from unexpected uses beyond individual healthcare, and the important role of health and medical research in advancing public health. To promote these ends, the OAIC approved the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)’s legally binding guidelines, G-PrivacyAct95 and G-PrivacyAct95A, which researchers must follow when handling health information for research purposes without individuals' consent. The guidelines also assist ethics committees (ECs) (known as the Human Research Ethics Committees in Australia) in deciding whether to approve research applications. The guidelines are:

G-PrivacyAct95, which sets out procedures that ECs and researchers must follow when personal information is disclosed from a federal agency for medical research purposes
G-PrivacyAct95A, which provides a framework for ECs to assess proposals to handle health information held by organizations for health research (without individuals' consent). It ensures that the public interest in the research activities substantially outweighs the public interest in the protection of privacy

See the PrivacyAct, the G-PrivacyAct95, and the G-PrivacyAct95A for more information.

Part II (6), Part III (15 and 16B), and Schedule 1

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Responsible Parties

The G-TCPS2, which sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ethics committees (ECs), states that where researchers seek to collect, use, share, and access different types of information or data about participants, they should determine whether the information or data proposed in research may reasonably be expected to identify an individual. Researchers and ECs must consider whether information is identifiable or non-identifiable. Researchers, ECs, and institutions share the responsibility for protecting participant confidentiality.

Data Protection

Per CAN-42, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada provides advice and information for individuals about protecting personal information, and enforces the two (2) federal privacy laws that set out the rules for how federal government institutions and certain businesses must handle personal information, including health data. The PrivAct covers the personal information-handling practices of federal government departments and agencies in Canada, and the PIPEDA regulates private businesses’ data protection practices. In addition, some provinces and territories have laws that deal specifically with the protection of personal health information. See CAN-43 for a list of provincial and territorial privacy laws and webpages.

Per the G-TCPS2, in the research context, the most simplified method to protect participants is through the collection and use of anonymous or anonymized data. When anonymized data is not possible or desirable, a next best alternative is to use de-identified data, which is provided to the researcher in de-identified form and the existing key code is accessible only to a custodian or trusted third party who is independent of the researcher. Where it is not feasible to use anonymous or anonymized data for research, the ethical duty of confidentiality and the use of appropriate measures to safeguard information become paramount. Researchers should consult their ECs if they are uncertain about whether information proposed for use in research is identifiable (e.g., when proposing to link anonymized or coded data sets).

G-Dcntrl states that for decentralized data collection through wearables, digital platforms, or remote monitoring, sponsors should consider where data is stored, who may access it, and how to prevent unauthorized sharing or reuse.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

Both PIPEDA and the PrivAct require consent for the use of personal data, including health data, except under prescribed conditions, such as for research or during emergencies. Also see CAN-43 for provincial and territorial privacy laws.

The G-TCPS2 states that to seek broad consent for the storage and future unspecified use of data, researchers must provide prospective participants, or authorized third parties, with applicable information as set out in the informed consent requirements. See the Informed Consent topic, as well as the following details:

The type, identifiability, and amount of data being collected and stored for re-use, and for what potential purpose
The voluntariness of the participant’s consent, including any limitations on the feasibility of withdrawal
A general description of the nature and types of future research that may be conducted, including whether the research might be conducted outside of Canada (if known)
The risks and potential benefits of data storage and use in future unspecified research, including areas of uncertainty where risks cannot be estimated
Access to a general description of the repository and its governance
A statement regarding participants’ preference to being contacted for additional future research
Whether the data could be shared with researchers who are not subject to the G-TCPS2
Whether the research will (if known) or might include whole genome sequencing or similar technologies that may pose a substantial risk of re-identification of the participant or identification of material incidental findings (when appropriate)
Whether linkage of data gathered in the research with other data about participants – either contained in public or personal records – is anticipated
Separate options for consenting to participate in a specific research project and for consenting to the storage of data for future unspecified research

See Brd-Cnst for additional clarifications on broad consent for the storage and future unspecified use of data.

Per G-Dcntrl, when using digital tools for decentralized activities, there may be concerns about data storage, access, and reuse or sharing without consent. Sponsors and qualified investigators can work collaboratively with participants to ensure informed consent is maintained.

Data management plans and Equitable and participant-centred use of technology

Chapter 2 (Article 2.1), Chapter 3 (Article 3.13), and Chapter 5 (A. Key Concepts and 5.1)

Part I (2, 6.1, and 7)

3, 7, and 8

Documentation Requirements

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.
ICH Harmonised Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (Effective January 13, 2026): adopted by TGA with a 12-month transition period through January 13, 2027 to provide stakeholders time to ensure full compliance. See the TGA webpage.

Obtaining Consent

In all Australian clinical trials, valid consent is required from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the AU-ICH-GCP and the G-NatlStmt. According to the AU-ICH-GCP, if requirements specified in the G-NatlStmt appear to differ from those specified in the AU-ICH-GCP, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) recommends compliance with the G-NatlStmt.

As per the AU-ICH-GCP, the informed consent form (ICF) (also referred to as a participant information sheet and consent form (PICF) in Australia) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by an institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as a Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia) and kept on file before the trial commences. (See the Required Elements section for details on what should be included in the form.)

According to the G-TrialsSOP, the principal investigator (PI) for any research project retains overall responsibility for ensuring a participant’s consent has been obtained in the correct manner prior to the participant’s entry into the project. This includes where consent is obtained from participants at satellite sites in a teletrial. The PI can delegate the duty for obtaining consent to a suitably qualified associate investigator at the PI’s discretion, but the PI remains responsible for any delegated activity. Furthermore, the investigator must ensure that institutional authorization is obtained, inclusive of approval by an appropriate EC, for all written information and any other media used to provide information to potential participants prior to their usage to obtain consent from any participant.

The AU-ICH-GCP states that the investigator must provide detailed research study information to the participant or legal representative/guardian. The ICF content should be as non-technical as practical and understandable to the participant or legal representative/guardian. The G-TrialsSOP further indicates that the ICF and relevant EC-approved participant information documents can be provided in person, by telehealth, or by telephone and email or weblink. If informed consent is obtained by telephone, this must be recorded on the ICF and in the participant’s health and medical record, and/or source document, stating (as an example): “The protocol was discussed with [participant’s name] via telephone on [DD/MM/YYYY].”

According to the G-TrialsSOP, e-consent may be the preferable option for teletrials, as consent signatures can be obtained contemporaneously at both primary and satellite sites. For more information on obtaining consent using telehealth, see the G-TrialsSOP.

As per the AU-ICH-GCP, the ICF content should be clearly presented orally, or in a written language that is easy to understand, and commensurate with the age and comprehension level of the research participant. The participant and legal representative/guardian should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate. According to the G-NatlStmt, information should also be presented to potential participants in ways that help them make informed choices. To this end, the researcher should take into account cultural and language barriers, the need for accurate and reliable translation, the participant’s educational background, the participant’s age and maturity level, and whether there is a visual, hearing, or communication impairment. See AUS-65 for researcher guidance on how to talk to potential participants.

Furthermore, as delineated in the G-TrialsSOP, the PI or delegate must assess the potential participant’s understanding of what they are agreeing to, that they are aware of the purpose of the study, what will be involved, and any risks that may exist. The participants must demonstrate that they fully understand the implications of decisions that may be made within the course of the research.

Per the G-NatlStmt, where a potential participant lacks the capacity to consent, a person or appropriate statutory body exercising lawful authority for the potential participant should be provided with relevant information and decide whether the individual will participate. That decision must not be contrary to the individual’s best interests. Researchers should bear in mind that the capacity to consent may fluctuate, and even without that capacity, people may have some understanding of the research and the benefits and burdens of their participation. Additionally, within some communities, decisions about participation in research may involve not only individuals but also properly interested parties such as formally constituted bodies, institutions, families, or community elders. See the Emergencies, Vulnerable Populations, Children/Minors, Prisoners, and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these populations.

As per the AU-ICH-GCP, none of the oral and written information concerning the research study, including the written ICF, should contain any language that causes the participant or legal representative/guardian to waive or to appear to waive their legal rights, or that releases or appears to release the investigator(s), the institution, the sponsor, or their representative(s) from liability for negligence. Per the G-NatlStmt, no person should be subject to coercion or pressure in deciding whether to participate in a trial.

The G-NatlStmt indicates that consent may be:

Specific – limited to the specific project under consideration
Extended – given for the use of data or tissue in future research projects that are: (i) an extension of, or closely related to, the original project; or (ii) in the same general area of research (for example, genealogical, ethnographical, epidemiological, or chronic illness research)
Unspecified – given for the use of data or tissue in any future research

The G-NatlStmt further states that when unspecified consent is sought, its terms and wide-ranging implications should be clearly explained to potential participants. When such consent is given, its terms should be clearly recorded. Subsequent reliance, in a research proposal, on existing unspecified consent should describe the terms of that unspecified consent. See the G-NatlStmt for more information on consent to future use of data and tissue in research. Additionally, see the Consent for Specimen section for more information on consent related to use of tissue in research.

Re-Consent

According to the AU-ICH-GCP and the G-TrialsSOP, any change in the ICF that is relevant to the participant’s consent should be approved by the EC prior to implementing any changes. The participant or legal representative/guardian should also be informed in a timely manner if new information becomes available that may be relevant to the participant’s willingness to continue participation in the trial. The communication of this information should be documented. The G-TrialsSOP further specifies that unless there is a significant safety concern, ECs will not usually require that participants be recontacted immediately since there are potential implications related to blinding. If approved by the EC, continued consent may be obtained verbally and recorded in the participant’s medical records and relevant documents. Re-consent may also be obtained by telephone if approved by an EC.

The G-NatlStmt notes that in some research, consent may occasionally need to be renegotiated or confirmed, especially where projects are complex or long-running, or participants are vulnerable. Research participants should be told if there are changes to the terms to which they originally agreed and given the opportunity to continue their participation or withdraw.

Language Requirements

Pursuant to the G-NatlStmt, methods for presenting research information to participants should take into account the need for accurate and reliable translation into the participant’s first language or dialect, as well as culture and its effects on the communication process. According to the G-TrialsSOP, in cases where translation is required, a professional interpreter should facilitate the process.

Documenting Consent

The AU-ICH-GCP and the G-TrialsSOP state that the participant or legal representative(s)/guardian(s) and the investigator(s) must sign and date the ICF. Where the participant is unable to read or the legal representative/guardian is unable to read, an impartial witness should be present during the entire informed consent discussion. After the following steps have occurred, the witness should sign and date the ICF attesting that the information in the ICF was accurately explained to, and apparently understood by the participant or legal representative/guardian:

The written ICF and any other written information to be provided to the participant is read and explained to the participant or legal representative/guardian
The participant or legal representative/guardian has orally consented to the participant’s involvement in the trial, and has signed and dated the ICF, if capable of doing so

Before participating in the study, the participant or legal representative/guardian should receive a copy of the signed and dated ICF.

The G-TrialsSOP further indicates that where consent is obtained by telehealth or telephone, once the ICF is signed and dated by both the participant and the investigator (and any other person present, for example an interpreter), the participant must select the statement identifying that consent was obtained by telehealth or telephone with the name of the investigator. Similarly, the investigator must select the statement identifying that consent was obtained by telehealth or telephone with the name of the participant. For more information on informed consent documentation, see the G-TrialsSOP.

According to the G-NatlStmt, consent may be expressed orally, in writing, or by some other means (such as return of a survey or conduct implying consent), depending on the nature, complexity, and level of risk of the research, and the participant’s personal and cultural circumstances.

Waiver of Consent

The G-NatlStmt specifies that although voluntary consent is a requirement for every trial, the EC may approve an alteration to the consent requirements. Limited disclosure to participants of the aims and/or methods of research may be justifiable. However, only an EC can review and approve research that involves active concealment or planned deception or aims to expose illegal activity.

Per the G-NatlStmt, it may be appropriate to use an opt-out approach for participant recruitment when obtaining explicit consent is neither practical nor feasible. An opt-out approach is a method used in the recruitment of research participants where information is provided to the potential participant regarding the research and their involvement, and where their participation is presumed unless they take action to decline to participate. An EC may approve the use of an opt-out approach for research if the study satisfies all of the following conditions:

It involves only low risk to participants
The public interest in the proposed activity substantially outweighs the public interest in the protection of privacy
The research activity is likely to be compromised if the participation rate is not near complete, and the requirement for explicit consent would compromise the necessary level of participation
Reasonable attempts are made to provide participants with appropriate plain language information explaining the nature of the information to be collected, the purpose of collecting it, and procedure to decline participation or withdraw from the research
A reasonable time period is allowed between the provision of information to prospective participants and the use of their data so that an opportunity for them to decline to participate is provided before the research begins
A mechanism is provided for prospective participants to obtain further information and decline to participate
The data collected will be managed and maintained in accordance with relevant security standards
There is a governance process in place that delineates specific responsibility for the project and for the appropriate management of the data
The opt-out approach is not prohibited by state, federal, or international law

According to the G-NatlStmt, only an EC may grant a waiver of consent for research using personal information in medical research, or personal health information. However, other review bodies may grant a waiver of consent for other research. In order to help maintain public confidence in the research process, each institution must make publicly accessible summary descriptions of all its research projects for which consent has been waived.

As stated in the G-NatlStmt, an EC may waive the requirement for consent if the study satisfies all of the following conditions:

Involvement in the research carries no more than low risk to participants
The benefits from the research justify any risks of harm associated with not seeking consent
It is impracticable to obtain consent (for example, due to the quantity, age, or accessibility of records)
There is no known or likely reason for thinking that participants would not have consented if they had been asked
There is sufficient protection of their privacy
There is an adequate plan to protect the confidentiality of data
There is, where practicable, a plan for making information arising from the research available to participants in cases where the results have significance for their welfare
The possibility of commercial exploitation of derivatives of the data or tissue will not deprive the participants of any financial benefits to which they would be entitled
The waiver is not prohibited by state, federal, or international law

See the G-NatlStmt for more information on conditions for the opt-out approach or waiving consent.

1, 3, 4, and 8

SOP 09

Sections 2 (Chapters 2.2 and 2.3), 3 (Chapter 3.1), and 5 (Chapter 5.3)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Obtaining Consent

In all Canadian clinical trials, a freely given informed consent is required from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the CanadaFDR and the G-TCPS2. Also see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence. For Health Canada (HC)’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

As per the CanadaFDR and the G-TCPS2, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by an institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as a Research Ethics Board (REB) in Canada) and provided to HC with the clinical trial application (CTA). (See the Required Elements section for details on what should be included in the form.)

The G-TCPS2 states that the qualified investigator (QI) must provide detailed research study information to the participant or legal representative/guardian. The ICF content should be in plain language (i.e., non-technical and easy to understand) and provided in a format that facilitates understanding. For example, written documentation may be supplemented with audio and/or visual aids. The participant and legal representative/guardian should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate.

As stated in Mdrn-CTFrmwrk, HC is moving from “written” to “documented” informed consent to allow new approaches for obtaining consent (e.g., remote or electronic platforms, electronic signatures, and documentation of consent where it is provided orally). Informed consent requirements will be considered met by HC where processes:

Are appropriately documented
Comply with good clinical practice and CAN-52 principles
Ensure that consent is informed and given in accordance with the applicable laws governing consent

Per G-Dcntrl, sponsors must inform participants of the potential risks and anticipated benefits of any decentralized elements in a clinical trial. In designing and implementing consent processes across locations, sponsors should consider whether the approach may introduce additional cognitive or emotional demands for participants. Reasonable steps should be taken to minimize unnecessary burden while supporting informed and voluntary decision-making. Virtual meeting platforms and electronic signatures may make the informed consent process more efficient for those who live in remote areas. However, participants may face additional challenges in providing informed consent remotely. Sponsors and QIs should be careful not to create a disadvantage for those who face barriers such as reliable private internet access, digital literacy, or comfort with virtual tools, or prefer not to use virtual platforms. Trial-related documentation should support any proposed delegation of duties related to the informed consent process to trial personnel or other third party, any proposed virtual meeting to obtain informed consent, and the proposed medium of the documented record of participants providing their consent (for example, written, video, audio). The following should also be considered:

Providing different methods of informed consent to those who request them, including in-person consent meetings and physical copies of the ICF
Using virtual meeting platforms that include both audio and video features so that QIs (or delegated persons) and participants can take part in the informed consent process and discussion in real time, and interact virtually with a real person

Further, the G-FDR-0100 indicates that a clinical trial participant cannot be involved in any aspect of a clinical trial until they have gone through the informed consent process, with a trial staff member (doctor, study nurse, clinical trial coordinator, etc.) and signed the document indicating that they understand the information and have agreed to participate in the trial. Neither the QI, nor the QI site staff, should coerce or unduly influence a participant to participate or to continue their participation in a trial. A qualified physician should be available to answer any medical questions that the participant may have regarding their participation in the trial. Information should be as clear and concise as possible, use simple language, and avoid unnecessary volume and complexity. See CAN-52 for additional information.

For guidance from Canadian researchers on the core elements for obtaining consent to ensure transparency and improve participants’ understanding of their involvement in research studies, see CAN-57.

Re-Consent

Per the G-TCPS2, consent must be maintained throughout the research project. Researchers have a continuous duty to provide participants with all information relevant to their ongoing consent to participate in the research. Consent begins with the initial contact (e.g., recruitment) and carries through to the end of participation in the study. Throughout the clinical trial, researchers have a continuous responsibility to provide participants and ECs with all information relevant to participants’ ongoing consent to participate in the research. The researcher must also notify participants of any changes to the research project that may affect them. These changes may have ethical implications, may be relevant to their decision to continue in the study, or may be unique to the particular circumstances of individual participants. Specifically, researchers must disclose changes to the risks or potential benefits of the research.

The G-TCPS2 indicates that rather than an age-based approach to consent, researchers should use an approach based on decision-making capacity in compliance with any laws governing research participation. This includes those whose decision-making capacity is in the process of development, those whose decision-making capacity is diminishing or fluctuating, and those whose decision-making capacity remains only partially developed. Mechanisms should be in place from the outset to identify and address any changes that could affect consent. A change in participant capacity is an important element of ongoing consent.

Further, the G-TCPS2 states that within the limits of consent provided by the participant, researchers should disclose to the participant any material incidental findings discovered in the course of research. Incidental findings are considered to be material incidental findings if they are reasonably determined to have significant welfare implications for the participant or prospective participant. Where material incidental findings are foreseeable, researchers should inform participants during the initial consent process. In addition, researchers should develop a management plan for review by the EC. For more information on how to address material incidental findings, see G-ConsentMatIncFindings.

See CAN-52 for additional information.

Language Requirements

Per the G-FDR-0100, the ICF must be made available for each participant in either official language (French or English) or other language as appropriate. The G-TCPS2 requires the ICF to be presented in plain language that the participant is able to understand. If there is a language barrier, the QI should select an intermediary who has the necessary language skills to ensure effective communication.

Documenting Consent

As per the G-TCPS2, the participant or legal representative/guardian, as well as the QI, must sign and date the ICF. The G-FDR-0100 states that the QI should retain the signed ICF.

The G-TCPS2 further indicates that researchers can use a range of procedures to seek and document consent, including oral consent documented in field notes, and other forms of recording (e.g., a consent log, audio or video recordings, or other electronic means). Evidence of consent may also be documented via completed questionnaires (in person, by mail, by email, or other electronic means). ECs should consider the power relationship that might exist between researchers and participants, and whether a waiver of the requirement for signed written consent may affect the welfare of the participants. If researchers plan to obtain non-written consent, they must explain their strategy to the EC.

See CAN-52 for additional information.

Waiver of Consent

As explained in the G-TCPS2, there are research situations that call for alterations of consent. The EC may approve research that involves an alteration to the consent requirements if the EC is satisfied, and documents that all of the following apply:

The research involves no more than minimal risk to the participants
The change to consent requirements is unlikely to adversely affect the welfare of participants
It is impossible or impracticable to carry out the research and to address the research question properly, given the research design, if the prior consent of participants is required
In the case of a proposed alteration, the exact nature and extent of any proposed alteration is defined
There is a plan to brief participants and offer the option of refusing consent and/or withdrawing data and/or human biological materials

Informed consent process

Good Clinical Practices

Chapters 3 and 10

3

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.005, C.05.006, C.05.008, and C.05.010))

Information on ICH guidelines implemented by Health Canada and Efficacy guidelines

Required Elements

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

Based on the AU-ICH-GCP and the G-NatlStmt, both the informed consent discussion and the written informed consent form (ICF) (also referred to as a participant information sheet and consent form (PICF) in Australia) should include the following statements or descriptions, as applicable (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

That the trial involves research
The purpose of the trial
The trial treatment(s) and the probability for random assignment to each treatment
The trial procedures to be followed, including all invasive procedures
The participant's responsibilities
Those aspects of the trial that are experimental
The reasonably foreseeable risks or inconveniences to the participant and, when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant
The reasonably expected benefits, including to the wider community. When there is no intended clinical benefit to the participant, the participant should be made aware of this
The alternative procedure(s) or course(s) of treatment that may be available to the participant, and their important potential benefits and risks
The compensation and/or treatment available to the participant in the event of trial-related injury, including provision of services to participants adversely affected by the research
The amounts and sources of funding for the research, as well as financial or other relevant declarations of interests of researchers, sponsors, or institutions
The anticipated prorated payment, if any, to the participant for participating in the trial
The anticipated expenses, if any, to the subject for participating in the trial
That participation in the trial is voluntary and that the participant may refuse to participate or withdraw from the trial, at any time, without penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled
Any implications of withdrawal from the trial, and whether it will be possible to withdraw data
How the research will be monitored
That the monitor(s), the auditor(s), the ethics committee (EC), and the regulatory authority(ies) will be granted direct access to the participant's original medical records for verification of clinical trial procedures and/or data, without violating the confidentiality of the participant, to the extent permitted by the applicable laws and regulations and that, by signing a written ICF, the participant or legal representative/guardian is authorizing such access
That records identifying the participant will be kept confidential and, to the extent permitted by the applicable laws and/or regulations, will not be made publicly available. If the results of the trial are published, the participant’s identity will remain confidential
That the participant or legal representative/guardian will be informed in a timely manner if information becomes available that may be relevant to the participant's willingness to continue participation in the trial
The person(s) to contact for further information regarding the trial and the rights of trial participants, and whom to contact in the event of trial-related injury
Contact details of a person to receive complaints and of the researchers
The foreseeable circumstances and/or reasons under which participation in the trial may be terminated
The expected duration of participation in the trial
The approximate number of participants involved in the trial
The likelihood and form of dissemination of the research results, including publication
Any other relevant information, including research-specific information required under other chapters of the G-NatlStmt

4.8.10

Section 2 (Chapter 2.2)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Based on the CanadaFDR and the G-TCPS2, the informed consent form (ICF) should generally include the following statements or descriptions in plain language, as applicable (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Information that the individual is being invited to participate in a research project
The study involves research and an explanation of its purpose and duration
The identity of the researcher and the funder/sponsor
The procedures to be followed
The participant’s responsibilities
Any reasonably foreseeable risks or anticipated benefits to the participant and in general
Information about any payments, including incentives for participants, reimbursement for participation-related expenses, and compensation for injury
An assurance that prospective participants are under no obligation to participate and are free to withdraw at any time without prejudice to pre-existing entitlements
An assurance that prospective participants will be given, in a timely manner throughout the course of the research project, information that is relevant to their decision to continue or withdraw from participation
An assurance that prospective participants will be given information on their right to request the withdrawal of data or human biological materials, including any limitations on the feasibility of that withdrawal
Information concerning the possibility of commercialization of research findings, and the presence of any real, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest on the part of the researchers, their institutions, or the research sponsors
The measures to be undertaken for dissemination of research results and whether participants will be identified directly or indirectly
The identity and contact information of a qualified designated representative who can explain scientific or scholarly aspects of the research to participants
The identity and contact information of the appropriate individual(s) outside the research team whom participants may contact regarding possible ethical issues in the research
An indication of what information will be collected about participants and for what purposes
An indication of who will have access to information collected about the identity of participants
A description of how confidentiality will be protected
A description of the anticipated uses of data
Information indicating who may have a duty to disclose information collected, and to whom such disclosures could be made
A statement to the effect that, by consenting, participants have not waived any rights to legal recourse in the event of research-related harm
Information on stopping rules and when researchers may remove participants from trial
All other aspects of the clinical trial that are necessary for a person to make the decision to participate in the clinical trial

Also see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Chapter 3

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.010))

Efficacy guidelines

Participant Rights

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

Overview

In accordance with the AU-ICH-GCP and the G-NatlStmt, Australia’s ethical standards protect participants’ rights and promote respect for human beings, research merit and integrity, justice, and beneficence. The G-NatlStmt further recognizes that state or territory authorities may have additional statutes regarding the use of human tissues, guardianship, and illegal and unprofessional conduct. Furthermore, a participant’s rights must be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) (also referred to as a participant information sheet and consent form (PICF) in Australia).

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As stated in the AU-ICH-GCP and the G-NatlStmt, the participant or the legal representative/guardian should be informed that participation is voluntary, that the participant may withdraw from the research study at any time, and that refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled. The G-TrialsSOP further specifies that participants may withdraw their consent at any time without giving a reason.

Per the G-NatlStmt, the participant should be informed of any implications of withdrawal and whether it is possible to withdraw data.

The Right to Information

As per the AU-ICH-GCP and the G-NatlStmt, a potential research participant or the legal representative/guardian has the right to be informed about the nature and purpose of the research study, its anticipated duration, study procedures, any potential benefits or risks, any compensation or treatment in the case of injury, and any significant new information regarding the research study.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

According to the AU-ICH-GCP and the G-NatlStmt, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right. Privacy is also subject to national, state, and territory laws, including the PrivacyAct. As per the G-TrialsSOP, if telehealth is used, all measures must be taken to ensure privacy and confidentiality of the participant’s identity.

See the Personal Data Protection section for more details on personal information collection and handling requirements.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

The AU-ICH-GCP and the G-NatlStmt state that the research participant or the legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the individual responsible for addressing trial-related inquiries and/or rights.

AUS-45 provides information on who the participant or the legal representative/guardian may contact regarding a concern with the clinical trial. The options include contacting the researcher(s) directly, the ethics committee (EC) (known as Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia), the institution, the healthcare complaints entity in the state or territory, or the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Concerns may also be reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). See AUS-45 for more information on the types of concerns that may be reported to each party.

See the G-NatlStmt for more information on institutional requirements for receipt of complaints.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The AU-ICH-GCP (which upholds the Declaration of Helsinki (AUS-52)) and the G-NatlStmt clearly state that a research participant’s right to safety and protection of health and welfare must take precedence over the interests of science and society.

See the Required Elements and Vulnerable Populations sections for additional information regarding requirements for participant rights.

Introduction, 2, and 4

SOP 09

Purpose, Scope, and Limits of this Document, Section 1, Section 2 (Chapters 2.2 and 2.3), and Section 5 (Chapter 5.7)

Part II

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Overview

In accordance with the CanadaFDR and the G-TCPS2, Canada’s ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. The G-TCPS2 states that a participant’s rights must be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process. For Health Canada (HC)’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

Also see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As stated in the G-TCPS2, the participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed that participation is voluntary, that they may withdraw from the research study at any time, and that refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled.

The Right to Information

As per the G-TCPS2, a potential research participant or legal representative/guardian has the right to be informed about the nature and purpose of the research study, its anticipated duration, study procedures, any potential benefits or risks, any compensation or treatment in the case of injury, and any significant new information regarding the research study.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

According to the G-TCPS2, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

The G-TCPS2 states that the research participant or legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the individual responsible for addressing trial-related inquiries and/or the participant’s rights.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The G-FDR-0100 upholds the Declaration of Helsinki (CAN-58), which states that a research participant’s right to safety and the protection of their health and welfare must take precedence over the interests of science and society.

Good Clinical Practices

Chapter 1 (Article 1.1), Chapter 2, and Chapter 3 (Articles 3.1 and 3.2)

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.001 and C.05.005))

Information on ICH guidelines implemented by Health Canada and Efficacy guidelines

Emergencies

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

The AU-ICH-GCP states that in emergency situations, when prior consent of the participant is not possible, the consent of the legal representative/guardian, if present, should be requested. When prior consent of the participant is not possible, and the legal representative/guardian is not available, enrollment of the participant should require measures described in the protocol and/or elsewhere, with documented approval/favorable opinion by the ethics committee (EC) (known as the Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia), to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of the participant and to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, including the G-NatlStmt. Per the AU-ICH-GCP, the participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed about the trial as soon as possible, and consent to continue and other consent should be requested, as appropriate.

The G-NatlStmt recognizes that in emergency care research, recruitment into a research project often must be achieved rapidly. Where the research involves emergency treatment and meets the G-NatlStmt’s requirements for research involving people highly dependent on medical care, consent for the research may be waived. See the Vulnerable Populations section for more information on people highly dependent on medical care, and the Documentation Requirements section for more details on waiver of consent.

4.8.15

Section 4 (Chapter 4.4)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

G-FDR-0100 states that in emergency situations, when prior consent of the participant is not possible, the consent of the participant's legal representative/guardian (as defined by provincial requirements), if present, should be requested. When prior consent of the participant is not possible, and the participant's legal representative/guardian is not available, enrollment of the participant should require measures described in the protocol and/or elsewhere, with documented approval by the ethics committee (EC) (known as a research ethics board in Canada), to protect the participant's rights, safety, and well-being, and to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The participant or the participant's legal representative/guardian should be informed about the trial as soon as possible, and consent should be requested as appropriate.

Also see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Per G-TCPS2, research involving medical emergencies must be conducted only if it addresses the emergency needs of the individuals involved, and then only in accordance with criteria established in advance of such research by the EC. The EC may allow research that involves medical emergencies to be carried out without the consent of participants, or legal representatives/guardians, if all of the following apply:

A serious threat to the prospective participant requires immediate intervention
Either no standard efficacious care exists, or the research offers a realistic possibility of direct benefit to the participant in comparison with standard care
Either the risk is not greater than that involved in standard efficacious care, or it is clearly justified by the prospect of direct benefits to the participant
The prospective participant is unconscious or lacks capacity to understand the risks, methods, and purposes of the research project
Authorization from the legal representative/guardian cannot be secured in sufficient time, despite diligent and documented efforts to do so
No relevant prior directive by the participant is known to exist

The G-TCPS2 states that consent will not apply to public health activities undertaken by federal, provincial, and territorial public health officials operating under statutory powers during publicly declared health emergencies. The Ethcs-Emrgcy is an educational resource that provides ethical considerations, including for consent, to help institutions, ECs, and researchers protect participants and uphold public trust in the ethics review and conduct of research during publicly declared emergencies. It includes examples of practical applications from various publicly declared emergency contexts.

Good Clinical Practices

Chapter 3 (Articles 3.7-3.9) and Chapter 6 (D)

Information on ICH guidelines implemented by Health Canada and Efficacy Guidelines

Vulnerable Populations

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

Overview

The AU-ICH-GCP characterizes vulnerable populations as those who may be unduly influenced by the expectation, whether justified or not, of benefits associated with participation in a clinical trial, or of a retaliatory response for not participating. Examples are members of a group with a hierarchical structure, such as medical, pharmacy, dental, and nursing students, subordinate hospital and laboratory personnel, employees of the pharmaceutical industry, members of the armed forces, and persons kept in detention. Other vulnerable subjects include patients with incurable diseases, residents of nursing homes, unemployed or impoverished persons, patients in emergency situations, homeless persons, nomads, refugees, minors, and those incapable of giving consent. Per the G-NatlStmt, people who may be involved in illegal activities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, ethnic minority groups, and people in other countries are other groups for which specific ethical considerations are required.

People Highly Dependent on Medical Care

According to the G-NatlStmt, research involving people who are highly dependent on medical care may be approved where:

It is likely that the research will lead to increased understanding about, or improvements in, the care of this population
The requirements of relevant jurisdictional laws are taken into account
Either: 1) any risk or burden of the proposed research to this particular participant is justified by the potential benefits, or 2) where participants have capacity to consent, any risk or burden is acceptable to them and justified by the potential benefits of the research

The G-NatlStmt indicates that when a researcher is also the treating health professional, it should be considered whether an independent person should seek the consent of potential participants who are highly dependent on medical care. In addition, the participant and/or the participant’s relatives and an authorized representative should be informed of the participant’s inclusion in the research and of the option to withdraw from it without any reduction in quality of care.

The G-NatlStmt states that when neither the potential participant nor the legal representative/guardian can consider the proposal and give consent, an ethics committee (EC) (known as the Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia) may, having taken account of relevant jurisdictional laws, approve a research project without prior consent if:

There is no reason to believe that, were the participant or legal representative/guardian to be informed of the proposal, the participant would be unwilling to consent
The risks of harm to individuals, families, or groups linked to the participant, or to their financial or social interests, are minimized
The project is not controversial and does not involve significant moral or cultural sensitivities in the community

And, where the research is interventional, these additional conditions apply:

The research supports a reasonable possibility of benefit over standard care
Any risk or burden of the intervention to the participant is justified by its potential benefits
Inclusion in the research project is not contrary to the interests of the participant

The G-NatlStmt further provides specific requirements related to conducting research on participants in terminal care, which is characterized by the short remaining life expectancy of the participants and their vulnerability to unrealistic expectations of benefits. Terminal care research should be designed so that the benefits of research justify any burden, discomfort, or inconvenience to the participants; the prospect of benefit from research participation is not exaggerated; the needs and wishes of participants to spend time as they choose are respected; and the entitlement of those receiving palliative care to participate is recognized.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

The G-NatlStmt states that research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples must be reviewed and approved by an EC and include assessment and advice from: people who have networks with and/or knowledge of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples; and people familiar with the culture and practices of the relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community(ies). In addition, the researcher should ensure the following:

Research methods are respectful and acknowledge the cultural distinctiveness of participating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and groups
There is evidence of support for the research project from relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities or groups and the research methodology engages with their social and cultural practices
The research methods provide for mutually agreed upon mechanisms for recruitment, information provided about the research, notification of participants’ consent and of research progress, and final reporting
Procedures and actions have been taken to monitor and, where appropriate, minimize any potential negative consequences of the proposed research

For more information on research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, see the G-AboriginalEthic, the G-EthicsRsrchTrackII, and the G-AIATSISCode.

People in Dependent Groups

The G-NatlStmt cautions that dependent or unequal relationships that might compromise the voluntary character of a participant’s decision should be considered. Examples of such relationships include caregivers and people with chronic conditions/disabilities; health care professionals and their patients; teachers and their students; prison authorities and prisoners; governmental authorities and refugees; employers/supervisors and their employees (including members of police and Defense Forces); and service-providers and especially vulnerable communities to whom the services are provided. Where potential participants are especially vulnerable or powerless, consideration should be given to the appointment of a participant advocate.

Per the G-NatlStmt, when a researcher and potential participant have a pre-existing relationship, it should be considered whether an independent person should seek the consent of the participant.

People Who May Be Involved in Illegal Activities

The G-NatlStmt provides specific requirements related to conducting research on participants who may be involved in illegal activities. Research that is intended to study or expose, or likely to expose, illegal activity should be reviewed and approved by an EC. Researchers should be satisfied that participants who are subject to criminal justice processes are aware that the research may discover illegal activity and do not have unrealistic expectations of benefit from their participation. Finally, research designed to expose illegal activity should only be approved where the illegal activity bears on the discharge of a public responsibility or the fitness to hold public office, the risks are justified by the benefits, and the research meets the other requirements in the G-NatlStmt.

People in Other Countries

The G-NatlStmt states that research involving people in other countries must be reviewed and approved by an EC and comply with the G-NatlStmt. The research design, protocol, and consent process should take into consideration the local cultural values, yet still result in participants being treated with no less respect and protection than what is provided in the G-NatlStmt. Additional details are provided in the G-NatlStmt.

1

Section 4 (Introduction and Chapters 4.1, 4.3-4.4, and 4.6-4.8)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Overview

Per the G-FDR-0100, the responsibility of an institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as a research ethics board in Canada) is to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of all human participants. An EC should pay special attention to trials that may include vulnerable human participants (elderly, children, mentally ill, prisoners, etc.). The G-TCPS2 states that in all Canadian clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process.

See the Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these vulnerable populations.

Good Clinical Practices

Chapter 3 (Article 3.9) and Chapter 4 (Article 4.7)

Children/Minors

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

The FamLawAct defines a child as a person who is under 18 years of age. Per AUS-71, different states or territories may have specific legislation about a parent/guardian providing consent to medical treatment for a minor; otherwise, the FamLawAct has provisions that may apply.

According to AUS-71, children under 16 cannot give legal consent, which must be given by a parent/guardian, but they can and should be involved in the decision. Young people over 16 can give legal consent to medical treatment; however, they usually cannot provide legal consent to participate in research until they are 18. Nonetheless, some ethics committees (ECs) (known as Human Research Ethics Committees in Australia) do allow mature young people under 18 to give their consent for some kinds of research.

The AU-ICH-GCP states that minors should be informed to the extent compatible with their maturity and understanding, and if capable, they should sign and personally date the informed consent form (ICF) (also referred to as a participant information sheet and consent form (PICF) in Australia). In accordance with the G-NatlStmt, consent requirements for conducting clinical trials follow the general requirements listed in the Required Elements section.

The G-NatlStmt states before including a child or young person in research, researchers must establish that there is no reason to believe that such participation is contrary to that child's or young person's best interest. Furthermore, a child or young person's refusal to participate in research should be respected wherever the child or young person has the capacity to give consent to that same research. Where a child or young person lacks this capacity, the child or young person’s refusal may be overridden by the judgement of the parent/guardian as to what is in the child's best interest.

The G-NatlStmt indicates that an EC may approve research to which only the child or young person consents if it is satisfied that:

The child or young person is mature enough to understand the relevant information and give consent
The research involves low risk
The research aims to benefit children or young people
The child or young person is estranged or separated from the parent/guardian and the researcher ensures the child or young person’s safety, security, and well-being in the research conduct; or it would be contrary to the best interests of the child or young person to seek consent from the parent/guardian, and the researcher ensures the child or young person’s safety, security, and well-being in the research conduct

In addition, as stated in the G-NatlStmt, children and young people who are not of sufficient maturity to consent should only participate in clinical studies when: the research is likely to advance knowledge about the health or welfare of, other matters relevant to, children and young people; or their participation is indispensable to the conduct of the research. When considering the inclusion of children and young people in research, the researchers and EC must consider their level of maturity to ensure adequate protections for their welfare.

Assent Requirements

AUS-71 indicates that when a parent/guardian gives consent for their child to take part in a clinical trial, researchers may also ask the child for their permission or agreement, also referred to as assent. The researchers must do this in an age-appropriate manner. Both the parent/guardian and the child should have the chance to ask any questions before agreeing to participate and at any time during a trial. In order for a child to provide their consent or assent they must:

Understand the research process
Understand the purpose of the trial
Be told what they are expected to do or what will happen to them during the trial

AUS-71 further states that children should be able to express their views and any worries they might have about participating in a trial, and have their questions answered. Children should always be given information in a form that they can understand. Additionally, AUS-80 indicates that refusal to assent or withdrawal of assent by a child should be respected. Over the course of a clinical study, it may be necessary to reassess the assent of a child in recognition of their advancing age, evolving maturity, and competency, especially for long-term studies or studies that may require sample retention. During clinical studies, it is required to obtain adequate informed consent for continued participation from pediatric participants once a child reaches the age of legal consent. Local regulations related to confidentiality and privacy of pediatric participants must be followed.

Furthermore, the G-NatlStmt states that except in cases involving standing parental consent, specific consent must be obtained from the child or young person whenever the child or young person has the capacity to make this decision, and either one (1) parent, except when the EC decides that the risks require the consent of both parents, or the child or young person’s parent/guardian.

Per the G-NatlStmt, researchers must respect the developing capacity of children and young people to be involved in decisions about participation in research. The child or young person's particular level of maturity has implications for whether consent is necessary and/or sufficient to authorize participation. However, it is not possible to attach fixed ages to each level of maturity, which may vary from child to child. The following guidelines on maturity and corresponding capacity to consent are provided:

Infants, who are unable to take part in discussion about the research and its effects
Young children, who are able to understand some relevant information and take part in limited discussion about the research, but whose consent is not required
Young people of developing maturity, who are able to understand the relevant information but whose relative immaturity means that they remain vulnerable; the consent of these young people is required, in addition to consent from a parent or guardian
Young people who are mature enough to understand and consent, and are not vulnerable through immaturity in ways that warrant additional consent from a parent or guardian

See the G-NatlStmt for more information on consent and assent involving children and young people.

Clinical trials and children

4

Section 4 (Chapter 4.2)

Part I-Preliminary (4 Interpretation)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Per CAN-35, because the G-TCPS2 does not specify an age of consent for children, the decision on whether to seek consent from children is based on whether they have the capacity to understand the research and the risks and benefits of their participation. Youth who have not reached the age of majority (either 18 or 19 depending on the province or territory) may still be old enough to provide their own consent. For children who are not sufficiently mature to provide consent but are able to understand the nature of study participation, researchers must obtain the child’s assent in addition to the consent of an authorized third party. The decision of a child not to assent must be respected regardless of whether third-party consent was obtained. (Note: CAN-35 offers practical guidance that is consistent with the G-TCPS2, but it is only required for research reviewed by the joint Health Canada (HC)-Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) Research Ethics Board (REB).)

CAN-35 provides the following criteria for determining whether participants can provide their own consent, or whether an authorized third party should be involved:

The risk level associated with the research project
The legal requirements for age of consent in that jurisdiction
The characteristics of the research participant (e.g., maturity level)
In certain cases, the topic of the research itself

CAN-35 states that it is generally accepted that youth can consent to minimal risk studies at 16 years of age, and that assent should be sought from children beginning at approximately seven (7) years of age. However, it is ultimately up to the researcher to determine whether to obtain assent or consent from children, and to provide the rationale for this decision to the ethics committee (EC) (known as a Research Ethics Board in Canada). Researchers should also consider that within a single research project, some minors may be capable of consenting while others may not. See CAN-35 for additional details regarding obtaining consent from minors.

As per the G-TCPS2, when the research participant is a child, the informed consent form (ICF) must be signed by the child’s parent/legal guardian. All pediatric participants, however, should be informed to the extent compatible with the child’s understanding, and if capable, the pediatric participant should sign and personally date the ICF.

As stated in G-TCPS2, children should only participate in clinical studies when the research objective cannot be achieved with adult participants only. When considering the inclusion of children in research, the investigators and ECs must consider a child’s stage of physical, physiological, psychological, and social development to ensure adequate protections for the child’s welfare.

Assent Requirements

G-FDR-0100 states that if minors are to be included in a trial, the EC should review the assent information considering the age, maturity, and psychological state of the minor population intended to be enrolled, as well as applicable regulatory requirements. Where a minor is to be included as a participant, age-appropriate assent information should be provided and discussed with the minor as part of the consent process, and assent from the minor to enroll in the trial should be obtained as appropriate. A process for consent should be considered if, during the trial, the minor reaches the age of legal consent, in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.

Per G-TCPS2, where a child has some ability to understand the significance of the research, the researcher must ascertain the wishes of that individual with respect to participation. Children—whose decision-making capacity is in the process of development—may be capable of verbally or physically assenting to, or dissenting from, participation in research. While their assent would not be sufficient to permit them to participate in the absence of consent by the child’s parent/legal guardian, their expression of dissent must be respected. See TCPS2-InterpCnsnt for additional information.

Further, according to CAN-12, which offers best practices and guidance to researchers and ECs in pediatric research and complements the G-TCPS2, provincial laws in Canada vary as to when a child is presumed to be legally competent to provide informed consent. Some provinces use age while others use a competence-based evaluation.

As per CAN-12, if the pediatric participant has the capacity for assent, then affirmative assent is required to participate in a study according to the participant’s level of development and capacities. When the child develops the legal capacity to provide informed consent or attains the legal age of majority (which depends on the province), researchers should obtain an informed consent. Regarding dissent, CAN-12 states that the researchers must respect the dissent of a child who is capable of understanding.

For more details and guidance about best practices for research involving pediatric participants, see CAN-12.

Good Clinical Practices

Chapter 3 (Article 3.10) and Chapter 4 (Article 4.4)

1

Guidelines III and IV

Consent Process (Key Considerations)

Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

As per the G-NatlStmt, studies involving pregnant women, fetuses, and neonates require additional safeguards to ensure that the research assesses the risks to the pregnant women, fetuses, and neonates. The wellbeing and care of the woman who is pregnant and of her fetus always takes precedence over research considerations, and research involving a fetus or fetal tissue should be conducted in a manner that maintains a clear separation between the woman’s clinical care and the research. Additionally, research should be designed to minimize pain or distress for the fetus, include steps for monitoring for signs of fetal pain or distress, and include steps for suspending or ceasing the research if necessary.

In accordance with the G-NatlStmt, consent requirements for conducting clinical trials follow the general requirements listed in the Required Elements section. However, except for therapeutic innovative therapy cases, the process of providing information and obtaining consent for participating in research should be clearly separate from clinical care if the woman is pregnant and the fetus is in utero. Further, per the G-NatlStmt, the woman should be informed of the following:

That she should consider whether to seek consent to the proposed research from any other person (e.g., the other parent)
Whether it is possible to store the fetus or fetal tissues for later use in research
That she is free to withdraw her consent to the research at any time, whether before or after a termination or other loss of a fetus
Whether there is potential for commercial application of outcomes of the research, including the development of cell lines
That she will not be entitled to a share in the profits of any commercial applications
Whether fetal organs or stem cell lines developed from them will be exported to another country

In addition, the G-NatlStmt states that if, for research purposes, fetal cells are to be derived from the fetal tissue and stored or propagated in tissue culture, or tissues or cells are to be used in human transplantation, the woman's consent is required. Others whom the woman identifies may also need to be involved in decisions about these matters.

For requirements related to assisted reproductive technology, including research involving the creation of human embryos using precursor cells from a human embryo or a human fetus, see the G-EthicsART.

Section 4 (Chapter 4.1)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

As per the G-TCPS2, studies involving women of childbearing age, or who are pregnant, require additional safeguards to ensure that the research assesses the risks to the women and the fetuses. The following guidance applies to research involving materials related to human reproduction:

Research using materials related to human reproduction in the context of an anticipated or ongoing pregnancy must not be undertaken if the information can reasonably be obtained by alternative methods
Materials related to human reproduction for research use must not be obtained through commercial transaction, including exchange for services

Per the G-TCPS2, research on in vitro embryos already created and intended for implantation to achieve pregnancy is acceptable if:

The research is intended to benefit the embryo
Research interventions will not compromise the care of the woman, or the subsequent fetus
Researchers closely monitor the safety and comfort of the woman and the safety of the embryo
Consent was provided by the gamete donors

According to the G-TCPS2, research involving embryos that have been created for reproductive or other purposes permitted by law, but are no longer required for these purposes, may be ethically acceptable if:

The ova and sperm from which they are formed were obtained in accordance with the G-TCPS2
Consent was provided by the gamete donors
Embryos exposed to manipulations not directed specifically to their ongoing normal development will not be transferred for continuing pregnancy
Research involving embryos will take place only during the first 14 days after their formation by combination of the gametes, excluding any time during which embryonic development has been suspended

Per the G-TCPS2, research involving a fetus or fetal tissue:

Requires the consent of the woman
Must not compromise the woman’s ability to make decisions regarding continuation of her pregnancy

Chapter 4 (Article 4.3) and Chapter 12 (Articles 12.6-12.9)

Prisoners

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

The G-NatlStmt refers to prisoners and prison authorities as an example of people who may be in dependent or unequal relationships.

Per the G-NatlStmt, a research study involving people in dependent or unequal relationships (such as prisoners) should, wherever possible, invite prospective participants to discuss their participation with someone who is able to support them in making their decision. If prospective participants are especially vulnerable, researchers should consider appointing a participant advocate.

Section 4 (Chapter 4.3)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

According to the G-TCPS2, prisoners are considered vulnerable because incarceration could affect their ability to make a voluntary decision regarding participation in research. A research study involving prisoners should ensure that these prospective participants are informed and are given the opportunity to make their own decisions without any interference from a higher authority.

Chapter 3 (Article 3.1) and Chapter 4 (Article 4.7)

Mentally Impaired

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

Cognitive Impairment, Intellectual Disability, or Mental Illness

The G-NatlStmt discusses the requirements for research involving participants with cognitive impairment, intellectual disability, and mental illness together, noting that many of the ethical issues they raise about research participation are similar. An ethics committee (EC) (known as Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia) must review and approve research involving such participants, except where the research uses collections of non-identifiable data and involves negligible risk.

Per the G-NatlStmt, the research design should take into account factors that may affect the capacity to receive information, to consent to the research, or to participate in it. Additionally, care should be taken to determine whether the participant’s cognitive impairment, intellectual disability, or mental illness increases the susceptibility to some forms of discomfort or distress. Ways of minimizing effects of this susceptibility should be described in the research proposal.

As delineated in the G-NatlStmt, the participant must consent if the participant has the capacity, or the participant’s legal representative/guardian must consent on behalf of the participant. Where a legal representative/guardian has given consent, the researchers still must explain to the participant what the research is about and what participation involves. If the participant recovers the capacity to consent, the researcher should offer the opportunity to continue participation or withdraw. Refusal or reluctance to participate in a research project should be respected.

The G-NatlStmt states that if the participant’s impairment, disability, or illness is temporary or episodic, researchers should seek consent when the condition does not interfere with the capacity to give consent. This consent should occur in the presence of a witness who is familiar with the participant, is independent from the research, and understands the research’s merits, risks, and procedures.

Research Involving Unconscious Persons

The G-NatlStmt states when prior consent is not possible for research involving unconscious persons, consent should be provided by the participant’s legal representative/guardian. However, relevant jurisdictional laws must be taken into account. Because of their extreme vulnerability, unconscious persons should be excluded from all but minimally invasive research, or in research designed both to be therapeutic for them and to improve treatment for the condition from which they suffer.

The G-TrialsSOP notes that as per the Declaration of Helsinki (AUS-52), for research involving participants who are physically or mentally incapable of giving consent (e.g., unconscious patients/participants), the study must be relevant to the physical or mental condition of the participant(s) that prevents them from being able to consent to participate in the study.

SOP 09

Section 4 (Chapters 4.4 and 4.5)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

According to the G-TCPS2, the ethics committee (EC) (known as Research Ethics Board in Canada) must approve the participation of research participants who are mentally or physically incapable of giving consent.

The G-TCPS2 indicates that for research involving individuals who lack the capacity, either permanently or temporarily, to decide for themselves whether to participate, the EC must ensure that, at a minimum, the following conditions are met:

The researcher involves participants who lack the capacity to decide on their own behalf to the greatest extent possible in the decision-making process
The researcher seeks and maintains consent from the participant’s legal representative/guardian in accordance with the best interests of the persons concerned
The legal representative/guardian is not the researcher or any other member of the research team
The researcher demonstrates that the research is being carried out for the participant’s direct benefit, or for the benefit of other persons in the same category; if the research does not have the potential for direct benefit to the participant but only for the benefit of the other persons in the same category, the researcher must demonstrate that the research will expose the participant to only a minimal risk and minimal burden, and demonstrate how the participant’s welfare will be protected throughout the participation in research
When authorization for participation was granted by a legal representative/guardian, and a participant acquires or regains decision-making capacity during the course of the research, the researcher must promptly seek the participant’s consent as a condition of continuing participation

The G-TCPS2, the participant’s legal representative/guardian can provide consent for adults who lack the capacity to decide on their own behalf in accordance with the best interests of the persons concerned. In such cases, participants should still be involved to the greatest extent possible in the decision-making process, and their assent to participate must be obtained if they are capable of expressing their wishes in a meaningful way (whether verbally or physically). Importantly, when authorization for participation was granted by the participant’s legal representative/guardian and a participant acquires or regains decision-making capacity during the course of the research, the researcher must promptly seek the participant’s consent as a condition of continuing participation.

Chapter 3 (Article 3.7-3.10)

Definition of Investigational Product

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

ICH Harmonised Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (Effective January 13, 2026): adopted by TGA with a 12-month transition period through January 13, 2027 to provide stakeholders time to ensure full compliance. See the following TGA webpage for more information.

According to the AU-ICH-GCP and the G-TrialsSOP, an investigational product (IP) is defined as a pharmaceutical form of an active ingredient or placebo being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial. This includes a product with a marketing authorization when used or assembled (formulated or packaged) in a different way from the approved form; when used for an unapproved indication; or when used to gain further information about an approved use.

The G-CTHandbook adds that an IP is any therapeutic good being tested or used as reference in a clinical trial. Therapeutic goods must be included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) (AUS-22) before those goods can be lawfully imported into, exported from, or supplied in Australia. The Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) and the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) schemes provide for the lawful importation into and/or supply in Australia of unapproved therapeutic goods for use solely for experimental purposes in humans. When a product is included in the ARTG, the entry applies to a particular sponsor (i.e., the individual or company intending to supply the goods). If a same or similar product is imported by another company or individual it is considered “unapproved”.

As per the G-CTHandbook, unapproved therapeutic goods include:

Any medicine, biological, or medical device not entered on the ARTG, including any new formulation, strength or size, dose, name, indications, directions for use or type of container of a medicine already in the ARTG
Therapeutic goods already in the ARTG to be used in a manner not covered by the existing ARTG entry

Determine the type of therapeutic good and Determine if the product is ‘unapproved’

1

Terms

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

As delineated in the CanadaFDR and the G-GMP-Annex13, an investigational product is defined as a pharmaceutical form of an active ingredient or placebo being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial, including a product with a marketing authorization when used or assembled (formulated or packaged) in a way different from the approved form.

For Health Canada (HC)’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

5.1

Appendix A

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.001))

Manufacturing & Import

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Manufacturing

As specified in the TGAct and the G-CTHandbook, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) authorizes the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) (i.e., therapeutic goods being used in a clinical trial) in Australia. As per AUS-88 and AUS-49, the sponsor provides manufacturing and/or active ingredient information to the TGA in the clinical trial application under one (1) of the two (2) regulatory schemes—the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme or the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme. AUS-49 indicates that as part of a CTN scheme application involving a medicine or biological, the sponsor must provide either the TGA-issued good manufacturing practice (GMP) license, the GMP certification (for overseas manufacturers), or a relevant exemption.

Pursuant to TGManuf, Australia adopted the Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S) Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products, PE 009-17 (AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide) regarding the manufacture of therapeutic goods. Per the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide, the holder of a manufacturing authorization must manufacture IPs to ensure that they are fit for their intended use, comply with the requirements of the clinical trial authorization, and do not place participants at risk due to inadequate safety, quality, or efficacy. The production of IPs involves added complexity in comparison to marketed products and therefore requires personnel with a thorough understanding of, and training in, the application of GMP to IPs. For manufacturers to be able to apply and comply with GMP for IPs, cooperation between manufacturers and sponsors of clinical trials is required.

Additionally, the principles of the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide on certification by an authorized person and batch release also apply to IPs for human use. Although the ultimate responsibility for the performance of a medicinal product over its lifetime, as well as its safety, quality, and efficacy, lies with the marketing authorization holder, the authorized person is responsible for ensuring that each individual batch has been manufactured and checked in compliance with national requirements in accordance with the requirements of the marketing authorization and with GMP.

See the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide for detailed manufacturing requirements. Additionally, see AUS-95 for the TGA’s summary of the changes in version 17 of the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide.

Import

The G-CTHandbook indicates that IPs may be imported and held under the direct control of the sponsor (importer) until the IPs are the subject of a notification to the TGA under the CTN scheme or an approval under the CTA scheme. The IPs must be kept in a warehouse or other properly secured area. There is no requirement for the CTN or CTA process to have been completed prior to importation of the clinical trial goods.

Creating a New CTN Form

The CTN and CTA schemes, Manufacturing, and Importing

Part I (Chapter 1 (Principle)), Annex 13 (Introduction), and Annex 16

Part 1 (Section 4) and Schedule 1 (Part 1)

Chapter 3 (Part 3-2 (19) and Part 3-3 (34-38))

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Manufacturing

As specified in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, Health Canada (HC) authorizes the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) in Canada. HC approves the manufacture of IPs as part of the clinical trial application (CTA) approval. The G-QCM-PharmCTAs provides guidance and templates to assist sponsors in completing the quality portion of the CTA, which in turn, enables HC to assess IP characteristics adequately. The G-GMP-Annex13 requires the sponsor to ensure that IPs for clinical trials are manufactured and imported in accordance with its provisions and with CanadaFDR requirements. Per the G-CanadaCTApps, sponsors must file amendments or notifications to a previously authorized CTA when manufacturing changes are proposed that may affect the quality or safety of the clinical trial drug or biologic supplies.

Per G-GMP-Annex13, during development, critical parameters and in-process controls should be identified, adapted based on production experience, and justified by the knowledge available at the time. Although the manufacturing process need not be validated to the extent necessary for routine production, premises and equipment are expected to be validated in accordance with applicable good manufacturing practice (GMP) principles. Manufacturers must identify process steps that ensure participant safety and the reliability and robustness of clinical trial data and maintain written cleaning procedures and analytical methods to prevent cross-contamination. For sterile products, controls and processes related to sterility should meet the same standards as those for marketed products; where required, virus inactivation/removal and removal of other biological impurities should be demonstrated, with enhanced attention to aseptic-process validation and operator training. If a drug is modified, data such as stability, comparative dissolution, or bioavailability should demonstrate that the changes do not significantly alter its original quality characteristics; the sponsor should justify an appropriate retest date, and a reference sample of the comparator product should be retained following repackaging or over-encapsulation. For blinded products, systems should maintain the blind while permitting rapid product identification when necessary; where the manufacturer generates randomization codes, unblinding information should be available to the person in charge of quality control before the drugs are supplied, and the expiry assigned to all products should correspond to that of the shortest-dated product. See the G-GMP-Annex13 for additional details.

Per CAN-55, HC is a member of the Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S) and meets international GMP standards.

Per CAN-50, Canada has implemented the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which provides additional guidelines on manufacturing IPs. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Import

Per the CanadaFDR and the G-FDR-0100, HC authorizes the sponsor to import an IP. A sponsor who is not based in Canada must have a Canadian representative who is responsible for the import of the IP and demonstrates compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements. This representative should be the sponsor’s senior medical or scientific officer residing in Canada and is responsible for providing an attestation with respect to the CTA at the time of filing. Per the G-CanadaCTApps, the G-DrugApp, and CAN-4, if clinical trial drugs are to be imported into Canada, the authorization template (Appendix 1) in CAN-4 should be completed and submitted for each importer in Canada. The G-DrugApp states that Canadian importer(s) must be located within Canada. As additional importers are identified, additional copies of the authorization template in CAN-4 should be provided to HC.

The G-FDR-0100 provides additional guidance on requirements if a sponsor plans to send the clinical trial IP(s) directly to each trial site:

A No Objection Letter (NOL) has been issued by HC authorizing the importation of the clinical trial material in Phase I-III trials; no clinical trial drugs should be imported prior to the NOL issuance and the NOL should accompany the package at the time of the importation
Each party, including individual Canadian clinical trial sites, importing drugs directly (i.e., receiving drug shipments directly from outside of Canada) is identified on Appendix 1 of the Drug Submission Application Form (HC/SC 3011 form) (CAN-4)
Clinical Trial Site Information (CTSI) forms (CAN-6) for each Canadian site conducting the clinical trial are submitted to HC for Phase I-III trials, prior to the start of the study
Systems are in place, when appropriate, to monitor the transportation and storage conditions from the foreign source to the various clinical trial sites across Canada
There is documented accountability of the imported drugs used in clinical trials and distributed to various clinical trial sites located in Canada, including the disposition of drugs returned from the clinical trial sites
A written agreement is in place between the sponsor and the qualified investigator (QI) describing their specific responsibilities, and this agreement is available at the clinical trial site
There is evidence that the drugs used in clinical trials conducted in Canada meet GMP requirements (e.g., certificates of manufacture, certificates of analysis, and/or evidence of approved lot release by a QI)

The G-CanadaCTApps, the G-HlthProdImprtExptReqs, the G-FDR-0100, and CAN-32 state that if a sponsor wants to import a drug into Canada for a clinical trial, a copy of HC’s authorization (i.e., the NOL) issued by either the Pharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (PDD) or the Biologic and Radiopharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (BRDD) must be included for the applicable trial with the shipment. A copy of this authorization must be provided at the port of entry. The G-HlthProdImprtExptReqs states that drugs without a Drug Identification Number may be imported where authorized for a Canadian clinical trial and a NOL was issued. The G-FDR-0100 further states that if 30 days have passed and the NOL was not issued, specific requests to import IPs should be directed to the Health Product Border Compliance Program at the following email account: hpbcp-pcpsf@hc-sc.gc.ca. Note that a sponsor does not have to submit a CTA for authorization to import an IP used in a Phase IV clinical trial.

Per CanadaFDR, the sponsor can make the following changes to the authorized use or importation of drugs if the sponsor notifies HC in writing within 15 days after the date of the change:

A change to the chemistry and manufacturing information that does not affect the quality or safety of the drug
A change to the protocol that does not alter the risk to the health of a clinical trial participant

Other changes must follow the amendment requirements delineated in the CanadaFDR. See the G-FDR-0100 for additional HC interpretations of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR.

2.3 and 2.7

Section # Block D and Appendix 1 Guidance

Application and Authorization and Good Clinical Practices

1.0 and 8.2-8.4

Importer’s Role, Table 1, and Human Drugs

I Introduction, S Drug Substance, and P Drug Product

Part C (Divisions 2-5)

Appendix 1

Drug Importation

Information on ICH guidelines implemented by Health Canada and Efficacy guidelines

Quality Requirements

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Investigator’s Brochure

According to the AU-ICH-GCP, the sponsor is responsible for providing the investigators with an investigator’s brochure (IB). The IB must contain all of the relevant information on the investigational product(s) (IPs), including significant physical, chemical, pharmaceutical, pharmacological, toxicological, pharmacokinetic, metabolic, and clinical information. The sponsor must ensure that an up-to-date IB is made available to the investigator(s), and the investigator(s) must provide an up-to-date IB to the ethics committee. (Note: In Australia, therapeutic goods being used in a clinical trial are IPs.)

According to the G-TrialsSOP, where the investigator contributes to the content and development of the IB, the investigator must ensure the IB follows the outline in the AU-ICH-GCP. The AU-ICH-GCP requires the IB to cover the following areas:

Physical, chemical, and pharmaceutical properties and formulation parameters

Non-clinical studies (pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, toxicology, and metabolism profiles)

Effects of IP in humans (pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and pharmacodynamics; safety and efficacy; and regulatory and post-marketing experiences)

Summary of data and guidance for the investigator(s)

See Section 7 of the AU-ICH-GCP for detailed content guidelines.

Quality Management

As specified in the AU-ICH-GCP, the sponsor must ensure that the products are manufactured in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP). Furthermore, the sponsor must maintain a Certificate of Analysis to document the identity, purity, and strength of the IP(s) to be used in the clinical trial.

Per the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide, GMP ensures that products are consistently produced and controlled to the quality standards appropriate to their intended use and as required by the clinical trial authorization. A pharmaceutical quality system designed, set up, and verified by the manufacturer or importer should be described in written procedures, taking into account the guidance in Chapter 1 or Part I of the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide. Manufacturers should maintain documentation including specifications and instructions; the IP order; manufacturing formulae and processing instructions; packaging instructions; and batch records. The product specifications and manufacturing instructions may be changed during development, but full control and traceability of the changes should also be maintained. The product specification file should be continually updated as development of the product proceeds, ensuring appropriate traceability to the previous versions.

See the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide for more details on quality system and documentation requirements.

5, 7, and 8

SOP 04

Part I (Chapter 1 (1.8)) and Annex 13 (2. Pharmaceutical Quality System and 5. Documentation)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Investigator’s Brochure

In accordance with the CanadaFDR, the sponsor is responsible for providing the investigators with an Investigator’s Brochure (IB). The IB must contain all the relevant information on the investigational product(s) (IPs), including significant physical, chemical, pharmaceutical, pharmacological, toxicological, pharmacokinetic, metabolic, and clinical information. The sponsor must ensure that an up-to-date IB is made available to the investigator(s), and the investigator(s) must provide an up-to-date IB to the ethics committee. Per CAN-50, Canada has implemented the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which provides additional guidance on IB development and contents. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence. For Health Canada (HC)’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

The CanadaFDR requires the IB to provide coverage of the following areas:

Physical, chemical, and pharmaceutical properties and formulation parameters
Non-clinical studies (pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, toxicology, and metabolism profiles)
Effects of IP in humans (pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and pharmacodynamics; safety and efficacy; and regulatory and post-marketing experiences)
Summary of data and guidance for the investigator(s)

In accordance with the G-CanadaCTApps, the sponsor must submit annually to HC an updated IB, which serves as the annual report, including all safety information and global status. Revisions that are more frequent may be appropriate depending on the stage of development and the generation of relevant new information.

Quality Management

As specified in the G-GMP-CAN and G-GMP-Annex13, the sponsor must ensure that the products are manufactured in accordance with good manufacturing practice (GMP). The G-GMP-CAN requires a quality management system, incorporating GMP, to ensure that IPs are of the quality required for their intended use.

Per the G-GMP-Annex13, the manufacturer’s quality system should be described in written procedures and available to the sponsor, taking into account GMP principles and guidelines. The manufacturer should establish and maintain a quality control system placed under the authority of a person who has the requisite qualifications and is independent of production. Quality control of the clinical trial drug, including that of the comparator product or placebo, should be performed in accordance with the information submitted in the application for the clinical trial, as authorized by the relevant country. Verification of the effectiveness of blinding should be performed and recorded.

Per the G-FDR-0100, if a sponsor plans to send the clinical trial IP(s) directly to each trial site, there should be evidence that the drugs used in clinical trials conducted in Canada meet GMP requirements (e.g., certificates of manufacture, certificates of analysis, and/or evidence of approved lot release by a qualified individual).

2.8

4, 8.2, and 9.0

4

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.001, C.05.005, and C.05.012))

Information on ICH guidelines implemented by Health Canada and Efficacy guidelines

Labeling

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Investigational product (IP) labeling must comply with the requirements set forth in the G-CTHandbook, the AU-ICH-GCP, and the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide. (Note: In Australia, therapeutic goods being used in a clinical trial are IPs.) Per the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide, as annotated by the G-CTHandbook, the following information must be included on the IP label:

Sponsor’s name, address, and phone number. The main contact details for information on the product, clinical trial, and emergency unblinding must be an Australian contact
Pharmaceutical dosage form, route of administration, and quantity of dosage units. For closed blinded trials, the labeling should include a statement indicating “placebo or [name/identifier] + [strength/potency]”
The batch and/or code number to identify the contents and packaging operation
A trial reference code, which should identify the particular trial site, unless provided elsewhere or its absence can be justified. The trial reference code used should also identify the Australian trial sponsor, unless provided as the main contact or its absence can be justified
The trial participant identification number/treatment number
Investigator’s name. The name of the principal investigator should appear on the label unless already included in a trial reference code or unless its absence can be justified
Directions for use
“For clinical trial use only” or similar wording
The storage conditions
The period of use (use-by date, expiry date, or re-test date as applicable) in month/year format and in a manner that avoids any ambiguity
“Keep out of reach of children” except when the product is not taken home by participants

The G-CTHandbook recognizes that in exceptional circumstances, it may not be possible to meet the requirements of Annex 13 of the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide for labeling IPs. In this case, the sponsor must contact the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) (see AUS-23) if they wish to request a departure from the requirements of Annex 13.

In addition, the AU-ICH-GCP states that the IP must be coded and labeled in a manner that protects the blinding, if applicable.

Per the G-CTHandbook, labeling is a manufacturing step under the TGAct. However, an exemption from the requirement to hold a manufacturing license may apply to certain persons identified within the TGR, to allow relabeling of the IP with name and address of the new sponsor. If there is a change of Australian trial sponsor, the clinical trial medication should be relabeled appropriately with the details of the new trial sponsor at the time of transfer. See the G-CTHandbook for more details on these manufacturing exemptions.

Additional details on IP labeling are provided in the G-CTHandbook and the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide.

Manufacturing

5.13

Annex 13 (6.6 Labelling)

Chapter 3 (Part 3)

Schedule 8

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Investigational product (IP) labeling in Canada must comply with the requirements set forth in the CanadaFDR, the G-CanadaCTApps, and the G-GMP-Annex13. The CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps state that for an IP to be used in a clinical trial, it must be properly labeled in both official languages: English and French. The CanadaFDR requires that IPs be packaged and labelled under the supervision of personnel who have had satisfactory technical, academic, and other training. The packager and/or labeler must have written procedures and ensure that the IP is packaged, labelled, and tested in compliance with those procedures. For Health Canada (HC)’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100. Per CAN-50, Canada has implemented the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which provides additional guidelines on labeling IPs. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

As delineated in the CanadaFDR and the G-GMP-Annex13, the following information must be included on the IP label:

A statement indicating that the drug is an IP to be used only by a qualified investigator
Name, number, or identifying mark
Expiration date
Recommended storage conditions
Lot number
Sponsor’s name and address
Protocol code or identification
Radiopharmaceutical information, if applicable

Per the G-FDR-0100, a label includes any legend, word, or mark attached to, included in, belonging to, or accompanying any drug or package. The sponsor is responsible for ensuring that the labeling of a clinical trial drug meets the requirements of the CanadaFDR, and that the system in place is validated, traceable, and does not compromise participant safety or product quality. The required information must be attached to, included with, or accompany each container of the drug product. If a label provides all the required information in both official languages (English and French), it is considered to have met the requirements of the CanadaFDR. However, traceability to the manufacturing lot should be maintained on the label immediately attached to the IP (i.e., primary container) such that its identity can be determined, and, if necessary, which unit was dispensed to each participant. For blinded clinical trials the sponsor must ensure that labeling information does not compromise the blinding. Labeling of a clinical trial drug with a manufacturer's lot number may compromise a blinded clinical trial. Identifiers other than a "lot" or "(L)" number (for example a batch number, a kit number, or a bar code) may be considered compliant, provided traceability is maintained. Where a bar code is included as the identifier on the label, the code on the drug label should readily link to information (for example, lot number and expiration date) through a validated computerized system. During an inspection, HC may verify that there is a system of traceability in place to ensure participant safety and that the computerized system, if applicable, is fully validated. It is acceptable for a marketed drug used in a clinical trial as a comparator, to be labelled in accordance with its marketing authorization, provided that the label on the marketed drug is appropriate for the trial. However, a marketed comparator drug used off-label must comply with the IP labeling requirements.

With regard to the expiration date, the G-GMP-Annex13 states that if it becomes necessary to change the expiration date, an additional label should be affixed to the IP. This additional label should state the new expiration date and repeat the batch number. It may be superimposed on the previous expiration date, but for quality control reasons, not on the original batch number. This operation should be performed at an appropriately authorized manufacturing site. However, when justified, it may be performed at the investigational site by or under the supervision of the clinical trial site pharmacist or other health care professional in accordance with national regulations and with the sponsor’s requirements. Where this is not possible, it may be performed by the clinical trial monitor(s) who should be appropriately trained. The operation should be performed in accordance with good manufacturing practice (GMP) principles, operating procedures, and applicable contractual provisions, and should be checked by a second person. This additional labeling should be properly documented in both the trial documentation and in the packaging records.

As indicated in the G-FDR-0100, HC may verify that a clinical trial drug has a valid expiration date during an inspection. If stability studies to support the expiration date for an IP are still ongoing at the time of labeling, the following may be considered acceptable in lieu of an expiration date:

A re-test date on the label if the sponsor has data to support the extended shelf-life of the drug, and
A manufacturing date is listed on the label, as long as the clinical trial site where the drug is dispensed has a document from the sponsor documenting the shelf-life of the drug

The above process should be documented, and procedures and quality control systems should be in place and in accordance with the approved clinical trial application. This additional labeling information should be properly documented in both the trial documentation and in the packaging records.

2.8.7

Labelling and Records

8.6

Part C (Divisions 2 (C.02.006, C.02.011, C.02.015-016) and 5 (C.05.011))

Efficacy guidelines

Product Management

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

As stated in the AU-ICH-GCP, the sponsor must supply the investigator(s) with the investigational product(s) (IP(s)) (i.e., therapeutic good(s) being used in a clinical trial). The G-CTHandbook indicates that Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) approval through the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme or notification through the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme must occur prior to supplying the IP(s) to the trial site(s).

The AU-ICH-GCP specifies that the sponsor must ensure the following:

Timely delivery of the IP(s)

Records maintained for IP document shipment, receipt, disposition, return, and destruction

A system for retrieving or disposing of IP(s) and documenting this retrieval or disposal

Written procedures including instructions for IP handling and storage, adequate and safe receipt of the IP(s), dispensing of the IP(s), retrieval of unused IP(s), return of unused IP(s) to the sponsor, and disposal of unused IP(s) by the sponsor
IP product quality and stability over the period of use
IP manufactured according to any application of the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)
Proper coding packaging, and labeling of the IP(s)
Acceptable IP handling and storage conditions and shelf-life

In addition, the AU-ICH-GCP states that the IPs must also be suitably packaged in a manner that will prevent contamination and unacceptable deterioration during transport and storage. Refer to the AU-ICH-GCP for detailed sponsor-related IP requirements.

As per the G-TrialsSOP, responsibility for IP management and accountability at the trial site rests with the principal investigator (PI). However, the PI may delegate responsibility for IP management to the site pharmacist or, where a pharmacist is not available or involved, to an appropriately qualified person. The site pharmacist or the appropriately qualified person will undertake IP management at the primary site and/or the satellite site in a teletrial. The investigator, pharmacist, or appropriately qualified non-pharmacist must ensure the IP is used only in accordance with the approved protocol and confirm IP certification and all relevant trial approvals/notifications are in place before releasing the IP for dispensing to participants. Refer to the G-TrialsSOP for detailed investigator-related IP requirements.

The AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide indicates that the manufacturer or sponsor’s representative should destroy IPs only with prior written authorization by the sponsor. The arrangements for destruction of IPs must be described in the protocol. Any related arrangement between the sponsor and manufacturer should be defined in their technical agreement. Destruction of unused IPs should be carried out only after reconciliation of delivered, used, and recovered products and after investigation and satisfactory explanation of any discrepancies upon which the reconciliation has been accepted.

Record Requirements

According to the G-TrialsSOP, the investigator, pharmacist, or appropriately qualified non-pharmacist must maintain records of all IP management aspects. These records at a minimum should include: shipping documents; date of each transaction; quantities; batch/serial numbers; expiration dates/retest dates (if applicable); temperature logs showing the storage conditions of the IP throughout the trial period; the set of unique code numbers assigned to the IP and to the trial participant; and record of destruction/return.

As set forth in the AU-ICH-GCP, the sponsor must retain essential documents for 15 years following completion of the trial. The sponsor should inform the investigator(s) and institution(s) in writing when record retention is needed and when the trial-related records are no longer needed. Per the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide, documents which are part of the product specification file must be retained for at least five (5) years. If the sponsor and the manufacturer are not the same entity, the sponsor must make appropriate arrangements with the manufacturer to fulfil the sponsor’s requirement to retain the clinical trial master file. Arrangement for retention of such documents and the type of documents to be retained should be defined in an agreement between the sponsor and manufacturer.

Importing

5 and 7

SOP 11

Annex 13 (5. Documentation and 11.3 Destruction)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

Per CanadaFDR, drugs must be manufactured, handled, and stored in accordance with good manufacturing practice (GMP). For investigational product (IP) packaging, the G-GMP-Annex13 provides the following guidance:

The risk of product mix up must be minimized by using appropriate procedures, specialized equipment, and relevant staff training.
To prevent errors, particularly when IPs are blinded, use heightened precautions, such as label reconciliation, line clearance, and in-process control checks by appropriately trained staff.
The packaging must ensure that the IP remains in good condition during transport and storage at intermediate destinations; any opening or tampering of the outer packaging during transport should be readily discernible.

The G-Storage provides principles and interpretations on the environmental control of clinical trial drugs during storage and transportation, including packaging. See G-Storage for information regarding compliance with the CanadaFDA and the CanadaFDR, as it relates to packaging clinical trial drugs for human use, such as the role of environmental controls, quality risk management, and special considerations for active pharmaceutical ingredients.

G-Dcntrl states that for decentralized activities, sponsors and qualified investigators (QIs) must ensure GMP- and protocol-compliant transport, storage, and handling of IPs. Sponsors are responsible for preserving product integrity during transport and storage and addressing controlled-substance diversion risks. QI oversight may include maintaining accountability for the IP at decentralized locations. Sponsors should ensure that direct-to-home shipment and dispensing comply with applicable provincial and territorial requirements.

Per CAN-50, Canada has implemented the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which provides additional guidance on IP management. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Record Requirements

As set forth in the CanadaFDR, the G-FDR-0100, and the CanadaFDR1024, the sponsor must record, handle, and store all trial-related information to allow complete and accurate reporting, interpretation, and verification. The CanadaFDR states that the sponsor should maintain all trial-related records for a period of 15 years. Pursuant to CanadaFDR1024, the sponsor must submit requested records to HC within 48 hours if safety concerns arise. Additionally, to facilitate inspection of a site, the sponsor must submit information to Health Canada (HC) within seven (7) days of a request.

Per the G-FDR-0100, drug accountability records should include the following information:

Date of arrival on site
Quantity received
Identification (batch/lot number)
Expiration date
Quantity and date dispensed and to whom
Quantity and date returned by participants
Quantity and date of destruction or return to sponsor

As explained in the G-FDR-0100, to ensure that participants receive the IP according to their randomization, qualified investigators (QIs) should maintain records. The QI and/or a pharmacist or other appropriate individual should maintain records of the product's delivery, the inventory, the use by each participant (including documenting that the participants were provided the doses specified by the protocol), and the return to the sponsor and destruction or alternative disposition of unused product(s). Drug accountability records are required for:

Drugs that are the subject of the clinical trial, and do not have market authorization
Drugs that are the subject of the clinical trial, have market authorization, but are used off-label
Comparator drug, if it does not have market authorization
Comparator drug, if it has market authorization, but its labeling was changed (for example for blinding purposes)
Comparator drug, if it has market authorization, but is used off-label (unless it was not considered to be investigational in the context of the particular clinical trial, based on the assessment of the application)

Further, per in the G-FDR-0100, drug accountability records are not required for:

Drugs that are the subject of a Phase IV clinical trial
Comparator drug, if it has market authorization, is used on-label, and has not been altered in any manner
Rescue or concomitant medications, authorized for sale in Canada, that may be used on or off-label but are not the subject of the clinical trial (for example, they are used as supportive medications for known clinical applications)

The G-Storage provides that when contracted parties, such as warehouses or commercial carriers, store or transport drugs, there should be a written agreement that outlines all relevant conditions.

See CAN-52 for additional guidance on IP record keeping.

Designing the trial, Quality management systems, and Roles and responsibilities

Labelling and Records

8.6

Part C (Division 5 (C.05.001, C.05.005, C.05.010, and C.05.012))

Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement

Efficacy guidelines

Definition of Specimen

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

In Australia, a specimen is referred to as a “biological” or a “human biospecimen.” According to the TGAct, a biological is made from, or contains, human cells or human tissues that are likely to be taken to:

Treat or prevent disease, ailment, defect, or injury
Diagnose the condition of a person
Alter the physiological processes of a person
Test the susceptibility of a person to disease
Replace or modify a person’s anatomy

The G-NatlStmt defines human biospecimen as any biological material obtained from a person, including tissue, blood, urine, sputum, and any derivative from these including cell lines.

Legislation in Australian states and territories do not use standard terminology, but generally refer to human biospecimens as “human tissue.”

Section 3 (Chapter 3.2)

Chapter 3 (Part 3-2A)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

In Canada, a specimen is referred to as “human biological material” or “biological material.” According to the G-TCPS2, human biological materials include tissues, organs, blood, plasma, skin, serum, DNA, RNA, proteins, cells, hair, nail clippings, urine, saliva, and other body fluids. The term also comprises materials related to human reproduction, including embryos, fetuses, fetal tissues, and human reproductive materials. The G-TCPS2 breaks down human biological material further into the following categories: anonymized, anonymous, coded, and identified human biological materials. Refer to the G-TCPS2 for more detailed information on these categories.

In addition, CAN-2 defines biological material as pathogenic and non-pathogenic microorganisms, proteins, and nucleic acids, as well as any biological matter that may contain microorganisms, proteins, nucleic acids, or parts thereof. Examples include, but are not limited to, bacteria, viruses, fungi, prions, toxins, genetically modified organisms, nucleic acids, tissue samples, diagnostic specimens, live vaccines, and isolates of a pathogen (e.g., pure culture, suspension, purified spores).

Chapter 12 and Glossary

Glossary

Specimen Import & Export

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (Effective June 23, 2026): includes updates related to research involving participants who may experience increased risk; additional guidance on research involving specific populations; and new information on research conducted during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other crises. See the FAQs page and this webpage.

Import

Per the G-NatlStmt, if a human biospecimen will be, or has been, imported for research, researchers must establish whether the human biospecimen was obtained in a manner consistent with the requirements of the G-NatlStmt and relevant Australian legislation. If this cannot be established, then the human biospecimen should not be used for research in Australia.

Per the G-CTHandbook, other legislation and requirements may impose restrictions on the import of therapeutic goods for clinical trials involving materials of biological origin (human, animal, plant, or microbial), genetically modified organisms, and other substances. See the G-CTHandbook for a non-exhaustive list.

Export

The G-NatlStmt states that a human biospecimen obtained in Australia may be sent overseas for research if its exportation is consistent with the original consent, and if ethics committee (EC) (known as a Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia) approval is obtained.

Per the G-SpecExport, a permit to export human body fluids, organs, and other tissue must be obtained from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) when the volume of a container exceeds 50 mL. If exporting substances derived from human blood, a TGA permit is required regardless of the volume. The application form requires the reason for the request, which can include research purposes. See the G-SpecExport for more details on when export permits are required, and AUS-24 for the application forms.

Other Considerations

The G-TrialsSOP indicates that to ensure the integrity of biological samples has been maintained, there should be evidence of the chain of custody from their point of collection through processing, storage, transport, through to disposal, with evidence of appropriate storage and transit conditions. Equipment used for processing and storage of samples (e.g., centrifuges, fridges, and freezers) should be maintained by suitably qualified persons and periodically inspected, cleaned, and calibrated to the relevant International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard according to local policy and manufacturer’s manuals. Additionally, the investigator must ensure all study staff, who have cause to handle or ship biological substances, hold a current certificate in the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Approved, Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Certified Dangerous Goods Packaging Course. The investigator must also ensure that documentation (e.g., receipts, shipping records, order forms, and proformas) related to handling and shipment of biological specimens is maintained and filed in the respective site file.

Additional details on import and export requirements are provided in the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, the G-SpecExport, and AUS-24.

Importing and exporting

Purpose, Determining if You Need a TGA Export Permit, and Applying for a TGA Export Permit

SOP 10

Section 3 (Chapter 3.2)

Last content review/update: November 2, 2026

Import/Export

According to the G-HlthProdImprtExptReqs, Health Canada (HC) does not have jurisdiction over human biological materials to be imported for testing or research purposes. The G-HlthProdImprtExptReqs further states that all blood samples as well as cultures, diagnostic specimens, or research tissue may be potential carriers of human or animal pathogens, and are regulated by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Per CAN-24 and CAN-2, the PHAC’s Centre for Biosecurity oversees the licensing process under the authority of the HPTA and the HPTR. The HPTA states that a license must be issued by the Minister that authorizes the import or export of human pathogens or toxins.

As specified in the HPTA, the HPTR, and CAN-2, individuals planning to conduct controlled activities (including producing, possessing, handling, using, storing, providing access to, transferring, disposing of, releasing, abandoning, or importing/exporting) with a human pathogen or toxin, whether imported or domestically acquired, must obtain a license. Per CAN-2, because all human biological materials are potential carriers of human pathogens, the PHAC has categorized these materials by risk group based on risk to the individual/animal and risk to the community. Risk Group 1 consists of microorganisms, nucleic acids, or proteins that are unable or unlikely to cause human or animal disease so they are generally not considered to be pathogens, and are therefore exempt from the HPTA and the HPTR licensing requirements. Risk groups 2 through 4 are considered to be pathogens or toxins with moderate to high individual risk and low to high community risk, and are subject to the HPTA and the HPTR licensing requirements. See CAN-2 for detailed information and instructions on how to obtain a license for activities associated with Risk Groups 2 through 4.

Other Considerations

Per the G-TCPS2, institutions and researchers that maintain biobanks must ensure that they have or use appropriate facilities, equipment, policies, and procedures to store human biological materials safely, and in accordance with applicable standards. They must also establish appropriate physical, administrative, and technical safeguards to protect human biological materials and any information about participants from unauthorized handling. Procedures for storage and record keeping must include effective measures to ensure that participants’ identities are protected, including the security of facilities and effective procedures for data handling, record keeping, and regulating access to human biological materials and information. Appropriate governance of biobanks is also important for managing access to and use of stored biological materials. The appropriate governance structure and management of a biobank will vary depending on its size and usage. Organizations that maintain biobanks may have their own policies on privacy of, confidentiality of, and access to materials. Researchers should be aware of requirements for compliance with such policies. Identifiable data derived from human biological materials may be linked to other research or public databases. Researchers who propose to engage in data linkage must obtain ethics committee (EC) approval prior to carrying out the data linkage. Where data linkage involves or is likely to produce identifiable information, researchers must show that the data linkage is essential to the research, and appropriate security measures will be implemented to safeguard information.

Blood and blood components for transfusion

Chapter 5 (5.7) and Chapter 12 (12.5)

Purpose of the Act, Interpretation and Application, Obligation, Prohibitions, and Licenses

Licenses

Chapters 1 and 2

Consent for Specimen