Advancing Excellence

DEPARTMENT OF OPHTHALMOLOGY AND VISION SCIENCES
Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto

Sept. 25, 2026

To the Faculty, Learners, Researchers, and Staff of the Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences

Dear Colleagues,

The external review of our Department’s learning, research and collaborative environment was completed in June 2026 by Dr. Cindy Hutnik, the Chair of the Department of Ophthalmology at Western University and Dr. Christopher Forrest, the former Chair of the Division of Plastic Surgery at the University of Toronto. I have read their report carefully and discussed it in detail with the Dean. We are sharing the Executive Summary with you.  The full report remains confidential to ensure anonymity for all of you who participated in the survey, interviews, and/or submitted confidential written communications to the reviewers.  This letter sets out what the reviewers found and how we intend to respond.

I would like to differentiate this external review from our internal review that occurred on Sept. 18th last week, which many of you also participated in. The latter internal review focused on our residency training program. This was done to help prepare us for our upcoming Royal College review in 2028. The discussion that follows is in response to the external review referenced above.

Thank you to everyone who took part, through interviews, surveys and written submissions. The reviewers noted that some of you spoke with them with real anxiety and concern. That anxiety was about speaking openly, and about whether there would be professional consequences for having done so. That should not be the cost of participating in a review of this Department, and I am grateful to those who shared their perspectives with the goal of making this a better place to work, teach and learn.

What the reviewers found

The reviewers confirmed the extraordinary academic strengths of this Department, while also making clear that our organizational environment is experienced very differently by different members of our community.

They identified two areas that require attention: our organizational structures and our culture. Their concerns were not about academic performance. Educational quality, clinical excellence and research productivity remain strengths.

With regard to our departmental structure, they heard concerns about transparency and accountability in our governance and our finances. With regard to culture, they found that some of you have very different experiences of the same Department — of transparency on how decisions are made, how resources are allocated and how faculty are recognized. The reviewers found that faculty members experience departmental organization and culture differently across roles and sites. Psychological safety, for faculty and for learners, was raised throughout.

I accept the seven findings and the eleven recommendations, and I intend to act on all of them. I was saddened to read about the lack of trust and professional safety that Department members voiced but also recognize this is essential feedback for me as your Chair and provides direction on what needs to change to ensure a greater degree of inclusion and engagement for everyone.

Trust and feedback

Trust has been diminished in parts of the Department. The reviewers said so plainly, and I will not soften the point. They also found that faculty and learners want to be able to raise concerns, disagree with decisions and give critical feedback without fear of retribution or professional consequence.

That is the finding I take most seriously, because everything else in the report depends on trust. A department in which people weigh the cost before saying what they think cannot govern itself well and cannot teach well.

So let me be plain. Feedback is welcome here, including feedback about me and my decisions, and I want more of that than I currently receive. There will be no retaliation for offering feedback. Raising a concern, disagreeing with a decision or reporting mistreatment will not affect anyone’s appointment, evaluation, resources or standing in this Department. We will not always agree about how things should be done and what direction the Department should go in, but I welcome all voices, am interested in what you have to say, promise to always be respectful, and expect the same from all of you.

If the concern is retaliation or conduct by me or by anyone in departmental leadership, the reporting route should not run through me.

• Faculty may bring concerns to Dr. Pier Bryden, Associate Dean, Clinical Affairs & Professional Values, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, outside this Department (pier.bryden@utoronto.ca).
• Faculty may also bring concerns to the Clinical Faculty Advocate, who is well versed in University policies and procedures and operates at arm’s length from both the Department and the University.
• Learners may bring concerns to the Learner Experience Unit, Office of Learner Affairs, outside this Department.
• In addition, I have asked the residents to nominate a member of our Department, at arm’s length from the leadership, to whom they can bring concerns and give feedback.
• Concerns raised through these routes will not be referred back to me or to the Executive Committee without the consent of the person who raised them.

Structural changes can occur within months; restoration of trust will require sustained evidence over several years, and it will be judged by whether these commitments are honoured in practice. We need to get started.

What we will do

Over the next twelve to eighteen months, with the Dean’s support, we will:

• Create an implementation committee to help enact the following and keep me accountable. While I intend to keep this committee small, I would like for it to have broad and diverse representation inclusive of one or two individuals outside DOVS to help support implementation. I welcome expressions of interest from anyone in the Department. If this is a committee that you would like to serve on, please email me and let me know why you think that you would be good for this role.
• Begin a departmental renewal and strategic planning process, with meaningful participation from academic and community faculty, learners, researchers and hospital partners, leading to a shared vision and measurable objectives.
• Publish a governance framework and updated Terms of Reference for the Executive Committee and all standing committees, covering how members are appointed, their terms of service and their delegated authority. Each committee will report its decisions to the full Department at least twice a year.
• Move to defined leadership terms — the reviewers suggest three years, renewable once in the same role — filled through a transparent search process. This will create new leadership opportunities and bring more diverse perspectives to the table.
• Establish a representative financial management committee and report annually on departmental, AHSC-AFP, endowed and Academic Enrichment Fund resources, including leadership stipends.
• Where clinical resources are shared across the Department, develop and publish transparent and fair principles for allocating those resources, including operating room time.
• Complete a formal review of all faculty and learner reporting pathways within six months so that they are demonstrably independent and confidential, put our anti-retaliation commitments in writing, and begin annual climate assessments.
• Introduce succession planning and periodic review with structured feedback for every leadership role in the Department, including my own.
• Develop a formal mentorship and faculty career development framework, including support for early career faculty undergoing continuing appointment reviews and encouragement for all faculty in both downtown and community sites to consider promotion, transparent criteria for academic recognition, and a coordinated research strategy that supports our discovery- and clinician-scientists.

To our learners

I am grateful for your input. The reviewers heard that some of you were affected by disagreements among faculty, either through conflict you were exposed to or through concerns about retaliation if you gave honest feedback or reported mistreatment. That should not happen. You are here to become excellent ophthalmologists, and our job is to give you a learning environment in which you can do that, insulated from organizational and interpersonal conflict.

You should have a reporting route that is genuinely independent and carries no risk of professional consequence. The routes above are open to you now. We will also provide faculty development and set clear expectations for faculty on their responsibility for your psychological and professional safety. We will develop a learner-specific action plan with clear measures of progress, including regular assessment of psychological and professional safety, access to independent reporting pathways, and timely follow-up on concerns. We will report back to learners on these measures and use their feedback to adjust our approach. With the program review coming in 2028 this work cannot wait and is my highest priority.

To our colleagues across all our sites

The concerns the reviewers heard about the need for greater transparency on how departmental decisions are made, how operating room time and other shared resources are allocated, and how academic work is recognized were raised across the Department, not by any one group or site.  Improving in these domains is a key priority for me as a leader.  The published governance framework, the allocation principles and the twice-yearly committee reporting set out above are the direct answer to them, and I will look to all of you to tell me whether they are working.

At our community-affiliated sites, your contributions to education, to research, to clinical care and to the Department’s reach across the Greater Toronto Area are essential to who we are. We have not been explicit enough about opportunities for academic participation, representation in governance, access to resources or the opportunities open to you. We will set those expectations out in writing and assure greater representation from sites on departmental committees.

As a first step, I plan to establish a community committee with representation from all our community partners and have that committee select a leader to sit as vice-chair community on our departmental executive committee. Depending on your preference, I would also like to either make a visit to your U of T DOVS affiliated sites or join your staff meeting virtually to hear from you directly and ask what the Department can do for you and what ideas you have to make the Department better and raise our profile.

What happens next

I will circulate a detailed implementation plan against the timelines in the report. Renewal strategy, governance modernization and financial transparency are targeted within twelve months, the psychological safety work within eighteen. I will report progress to the Department and the Dean’s Office annually and I will hold sessions where faculty and learners can ask questions and give me feedback directly.

The reviewers wrote that they found no shortage of talent, commitment or opportunity in this Department. I agree with them. Thank you for your candour; I welcome your continued feedback as we move forward with this work.

Sincerely,

Peter Kertes, MD CM, FRCSC
Professor and Chair, Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences
Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto

OFFICE OF THE DEAN
Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto

Sept 25, 2026

To the Faculty, Learners, Researchers, and Staff of the Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to share my thoughts and commitments regarding the DOVS External Review Report and Executive Summary and Dr. Kertes's Chair’s response.  

I would like to begin by thanking all of you who gave your time to participate in the review and shared your honest feedback with the reviewers either through the survey, interviews, or written submissions.  Without your contributions, the reviewers would have been unable to provide the accurate assessment and relevant recommendations that are required for substantive change.

As you know, Dr. Kertes and I commissioned this review of DOVS's learning, research, and collaborative environment because of concerns raised regarding learner experience, faculty relationships, governance, and organizational culture. We agreed a review was required in order to obtain a rigorous, independent, and confidential examination of these concerns — not because we doubted the department's academic standing.  Dr. Hutnik's and Dr. Forrest's report confirms what I have heard consistently in my own conversations with this community: DOVS remains one of the leading academic ophthalmology departments in the world, with exceptional clinical, educational, and research programs and deeply committed faculty, learners, and staff.

The report also confirms that the department's organizational structures and culture require sustained attention — particularly governance, leadership accountability, and psychological safety. I take these findings seriously. I have read the full report and discussed it with Dr. Kertes, and I support both his acceptance of all seven findings and eleven recommendations and the concrete commitments he has laid out.

I want to acknowledge directly the reviewers' finding that some of you spoke with real anxiety about the professional consequences of candour. That is not acceptable, and addressing it is a responsibility Dr. Kertes and I share. The reporting pathways he has described — including routes that sit outside the department and outside the Chair’s office — will remain available to all of you, and the decanal team will monitor that they are functioning as intended, independently of departmental leadership.

I have asked Dr. Kertes to report progress to me regularly against the ambitious implementation timeline he has outlined. My office will be an active partner in the renewal and strategic planning process, the governance and financial oversight work, and the psychological safety commitments, and I will personally review progress on the latter at the six-month mark.

I want to close by echoing something the reviewers wrote, and that Dr. Kertes has already emphasized: the reviewers found no shortage of talent, commitment, or opportunity in this department. I share their assessment. I have full confidence in Dr. Kertes's leadership and in this department's ability to emerge from this process more transparent, more accountable, and more united.

Again, thank you to everyone who participated in the review. Your frankness is what makes this work possible and will help propel DOVS toward an even stronger future and new levels of excellence.

Sincerely,

Lisa Robinson
Dean, Temerty Faculty of Medicine
University of Toronto