Canada Foundation for Innovation — Innovation Fund 2027: Up to $325 Million for Research Infrastructure, Covering 40 Percent of Project Costs, With Notices of Intent Due 29 September 2026

Canada Foundation for Innovation — Innovation Fund 2027: Up to $325 Million for Research Infrastructure, Covering 40 Percent of Project Costs, With Notices of Intent Due 29 September 2026

The Canada Foundation for Innovation opened its 2027 Innovation Fund competition on 3 June 2026, and the first hard gate is close: notices of intent are due 29 September 2026. This is the CFI’s largest and most competitive infrastructure program, and the 2027 round carries a budget of up to $325 million in capital funding plus up to $97.5 million in associated operating support. Full proposals follow on 2 February 2027, with a Board decision in November 2027.

If you are a researcher in Canada who needs a microscope suite, a containment facility, a ship-time platform, a digital archive, a fabrication cleanroom, or a shared analytical core, this is the competition that pays for roughly 40 cents of every eligible dollar. It is also a competition where the institution — not the individual investigator — is formally the applicant, and where your project has to survive an internal selection process before it ever reaches Ottawa. Understanding that two-layer structure is the single most useful thing you can take away from this guide.

Key Details at a Glance

What the Innovation Fund Actually Pays For

The Innovation Fund is a capital program. It buys research infrastructure — equipment, laboratories, databases, specimen collections, renovations, and the things that make those assets usable — rather than salaries for graduate students or the running costs of a research program. The CFI describes its scope as spanning the full research spectrum, from fundamental investigation through applied research and technology development, and across every discipline from natural sciences and engineering to life sciences, health, social sciences, humanities and the arts.

The arithmetic matters. The CFI contributes up to 40 percent of eligible project costs, and applicants are expected to secure the remaining 60 percent from other partners. In practice that usually means a provincial or territorial research fund (frequently matching at a similar rate), institutional contributions, in-kind or cash support from industry, and occasionally other granting agencies. A project with $5 million in total eligible costs is asking the CFI for roughly $2 million and needs a credible, documented plan for the other $3 million. Proposals that arrive with a vague promise of “institutional support to be confirmed” are visibly weaker than proposals with signed partner letters and a provincial application already in motion.

On top of the capital award, the CFI continues to grant Infrastructure Operating Fund support at 30 percent of the CFI-funded value. That is what generates the up to $97.5 million figure alongside the $325 million capital envelope. IOF is real money for operations and maintenance, but it does not cover the whole life-cycle cost — which is precisely why the sustainability criterion carries weight in review.

Eligible costs, including certain personnel costs, can be incurred as early as 1 November 2025 and as late as the deadline for your final financial report. That backdating is genuinely useful for projects where hiring or procurement has already begun.

Newer eligible cost categories

Three personnel-cost categories are worth flagging because applicants routinely miss them:

• Personnel support for databases remains an eligible capital cost across all streams, in recognition that digital infrastructure needs ongoing curation and updating rather than a one-time build.
• Community interface personnel is new to the 2027 competition. These are salary costs for people who design and develop partnerships and community networks, and they are eligible for any proposal whose primary field of research is in the social sciences, humanities and arts.
• Technical and scientific personnel responsible for the general operation and maintenance of core facility infrastructure remains a unique Stream 3 cost category. The exception: a core already funded through the CFI’s Major Science Initiatives Fund cannot request these expanded personnel costs, because MSI already covers them.

The Three Streams — and How to Pick the Right One

All three streams draw from the same pot; there is no predetermined split of funding among them. But each has its own tailored assessment framework, so the choice is consequential and, once submitted, effectively locked in.

Stream 1 — Leading edge of exploration and knowledge generation (open). The traditional stream, open to all disciplines and all project types.

Stream 2 — Leading edge of exploration and knowledge generation in the social sciences, humanities and arts (SSHA). To use this stream, your primary field of research must sit in SSHA. The assessment criteria are near-identical to Stream 1 with small adjustments in wording, but Stream 2 also carries an envelope advantage discussed below.

Stream 3 — Creation, renewal and upgrade of core facilities. Every piece of requested infrastructure must be housed in and managed by a core facility.

The CFI’s own decision path runs like this. First, ask whether the project is mature enough to be finalized and completed inside the required timelines; if not, wait for the next competition. Then ask whether all requested infrastructure will live in a core facility serving a variety of research programs — if yes, Stream 3. If not, ask whether the primary field of research is in SSHA — if yes, Stream 2; if no, Stream 1.

What counts as a core facility

A core facility, in CFI terms, provides shared access to resources too complex or costly for an individual researcher to maintain: specialized equipment, expertise, analytical services, training. It is expected to be broadly accessible, to serve a variety of research programs, to be formally recognized by its institution, and to have defined governance, management structures and dedicated personnel. Several clarifications that come up repeatedly:

• Cores can be distributed across multiple sites and institutions, as long as every component is genuinely a core.
• A core predominantly focused on computing infrastructure is not eligible for Stream 3, though ancillary or complementary computing infrastructure can be requested.
• A core facility director can lead and submit a project, provided they are affiliated with the administrative institution. That affiliation requirement does not extend to co-leads or other team members.
• New core facilities are eligible. Stream 3 asks for a description of the current or planned user base, so an established user base is not mandatory — but a new core has to justify anticipated demand with a credible, specific rationale rather than optimism.
• Formal recognition of what constitutes a “core” is determined by the institution, not by the CFI. Sort that out with your research office early.

Institutional Envelopes and the Two Exemptions

This is the part that surprises people who have only applied to investigator-led programs. The CFI caps how much funding each institution may request, using an institutional envelope, in order to hold the overall success rate near 30 percent and keep applicant and reviewer burden down. Envelope amounts vary by institution and are published on the last page of the call for proposals.

At the NOI stage, institutions may exceed their envelope by roughly 10 percent, which gives internal committees flexibility while portfolios are still being finalized. At the proposal stage, submissions must fit within the envelope exactly.

For multi-institutional projects, a collaborating institution’s envelope contribution is expected to be proportional to the value of the infrastructure it will house, or to its scientific contribution — bringing unique expertise, translating outputs to industry, and so on.

Two exemptions sit outside the envelope, and they stack:

1. The single proposal exemption. If an institution is involved in exactly one proposal in the competition — as lead or as a collaborator contributing envelope — it is not limited by its envelope.
2. The SSHA exemption. Each institution may flag a single project with a primary field of research in the social sciences, humanities and arts as exempt from its envelope. Collaborators on an SSHA-exempt project also have their contributions exempted. An institution may lead only one SSHA-exempt project, but may collaborate on as many SSHA-exempt projects led by others as it likes.

Because these stack, an institution submitting two projects — one SSHA-exempt, one covered by the single proposal exemption — is effectively unconstrained by its envelope. At three or more proposals, the single proposal exemption is lost, though the SSHA exemption can still apply. If you work in the humanities or social sciences at an institution with a small envelope, this is the mechanism most likely to get your project to the starting line.

The Application Process, Step by Step

Everything is submitted through CAMS, the CFI Awards Management System. Before any of it, your institution must be confirmed eligible, must have a signed institutional agreement, and you must have a CAMS account.

Step 1 — Notice of intent (due 29 September 2026)

NOIs are not evaluated. They serve two purposes: an administrative check on stream eligibility and envelope allocations, and — more importantly — guiding the CFI’s recruitment of reviewers. The expertise the CFI starts hunting for is determined by what you write here, which means a sloppy NOI can saddle you with a poorly matched expert committee eight months later.

The NOI asks for:

• Basic project information — title, amount requested, keywords.
• Collaborating institutions, which validates envelope contributions.
• A plain-language project summary, which the CFI publishes publicly on its website to encourage collaboration between institutions with complementary projects.
• The team — up to 10 individuals key to the project’s success, drawn from any institution, sector or country, with up to two team leaders. Every named member’s CV is appended.
• A project description of approximately three pages (four in French), covering a high-level description of research activities and expected outcomes, a table of requested infrastructure, and a table of partners and potential conflicts of interest.
• Suggested reviewers — a diverse group with relevant expertise and no conflicts.

Access to the full proposal module is granted only after the CFI completes its administrative review of NOIs, so a gap between submitting and seeing the proposal form is normal.

Step 2 — Full proposal (due 2 February 2027)

Much of the NOI content pre-populates the proposal, and nearly all of it stays editable — the notable exception being your choice of stream. The proposal adds:

• The assessment criteria PDF, a 25- to 36-page document depending on total project cost and language. This is the core of the submission and where reviewers spend their time. Applicants have full discretion over how pages are distributed among criteria and whether to use diagrams or images.
• Financial resources for operations and maintenance — a breakdown of expected costs to maintain the infrastructure over its first five years of use, and the revenue or means by which those costs will be met.
• Project characteristics — a set of straightforward questions covering whether the proposal involves Indigenous research, whether infrastructure will be housed outside Canada, whether team members or partner organizations are outside Canada, and whether infrastructure will be integrated into an existing core or national research facility (and at what percentage).
• The finance module — the detailed, item-level budget, including partner contributions. Every item must be justified in the proposal, and utilization must be prorated where infrastructure serves non-research activities such as teaching.
• The research security module, addressing obligations under the Government of Canada’s National Security Guidelines for Research Partnerships and the Policy on Sensitive Technology Research and Affiliations of Concern (STRAC).

On generative AI: the CFI points applicants to federal guidelines and reminds everyone that applicants and institutions remain fully accountable for proposal content, with privacy, confidentiality, data security and IP protection taking priority.

The Five Assessment Criteria

Every proposal, whatever its stream, is judged against the same five criteria, aligned to the competition’s three objectives (strengthen international competitiveness, build sustainable research capacity, generate benefits for Canadians). The sub-criteria vary slightly by stream.

1. Research — Is the research program innovative, feasible and internationally competitive? Situate the work against what is being done globally, describe methodology and risk mitigation, and explain how equity, diversity and inclusion principles apply to the research design. In Stream 3, this becomes a higher-level description of the types of projects and services the facility will enable, plus the diversity of current or planned users; reviewers are told to expect less scientific detail here.
2. Team — Do team members and partners have the experience and expertise to do the work, in an inclusive working environment? A competency matrix linking research activities to specific members’ expertise is explicitly appreciated by reviewers.
3. Infrastructure — Is the requested infrastructure necessary and appropriate? Explain how it relates to the planned activities and how it enhances or complements what already exists. Stream 3 adds a requirement to describe the role of personnel operating, maintaining or managing the facility where those salaries are being requested as capital costs.
4. Sustainability — Will the infrastructure be well managed, appropriately used and financially sustainable over the long term? Cover management, operation, maintenance, access policy, responsible data management and financial sustainability. Stream 3 applicants must clearly separate personnel costs requested as capital from personnel costs covered by other sources.
5. Benefits — Will the project generate relevant, impactful benefits for Canadians, with defined pathways to real-world uptake through knowledge mobilization, technology transfer and end-user engagement, including the training of highly qualified personnel?

A crucial procedural detail: reviewers assess only what is written in the application, and they are asked to consider every sub-criterion. If a sub-criterion does not apply to your project, say so explicitly and briefly. Silence is scored as an omission, not as a non-issue. The CFI makes this point specifically about EDI — if EDI principles genuinely do not apply to your research program, write a sentence explaining why rather than skipping the topic.

EDI assessment in the 2027 competition is concentrated in the Research and Team criteria, under inclusive research design and inclusive work environments. The CFI has confirmed there are no hidden expectations to address EDI under Infrastructure, Sustainability or Benefits — though where it is genuinely relevant, such as OCAP principles and Indigenous engagement in knowledge mobilization, you should still discuss it.

Project Readiness, Timelines and Completion

Readiness is a filter the CFI applies seriously. Funded projects are expected to be finalized within nine months of the funding decision and completed — meaning the final financial report submitted — within timelines that scale with project size, ranging from roughly 24 to 60 months. If there is real doubt about whether the project can be delivered in that window, the CFI’s own advice is to wait for the next competition rather than submit a project that will stall. A stalled award damages both the researcher and the institution’s standing.

That advice has practical force at the NOI stage. Confirm your procurement path, your space, your renovation approvals and your partner funding before committing envelope to a project that is still conceptual.

Review Process and What Happens After Submission

The 2027 competition uses a three-stage merit review:

• Expert Committees (March to July 2027) assess the subject-matter quality of each proposal against the five criteria.
• Multidisciplinary Assessment Committees (September 2027) evaluate proposals against the objectives of the competition, taking the expert reports as input.
• A Special Multidisciplinary Assessment Committee (October 2027) considers the portfolio as a whole.
• The CFI Board of Directors makes the final funding decision in November 2027.

The CFI coordinates deliberately with provincial and territorial funders: it shares proposals and committee reports, invites provincial representatives to observe relevant expert committee meetings, and brings provincial and territorial priorities to the special committee. This is why aligning early with your provincial funder is not merely administratively tidy — it feeds into the recommendation itself.

New in 2027, the CFI has added language on defence and dual-use technologies in response to Canada’s defence industrial strategy. The CFI will work with the Department of National Defence to identify projects of potential interest, initially from public NOI summaries, and with institutional and researcher permission may share NOIs, proposals and expert committee reports, or invite DND observers to relevant reviews. DND may contact applicants directly at its discretion. The CFI has been emphatic that this changes nothing about the budget, the assessment criteria or the review process: there is no fast track, no prioritization and no set-aside funding for defence-aligned projects.

Who Should Talk to Whom, and When

Several conversations should start now rather than in January:

• Your institutional research office. They control the envelope, run the internal competition, and often set internal deadlines months ahead of the CFI’s. Many Canadian universities run internal expression-of-interest and pre-proposal rounds; if you have not been in touch, you may already be behind.
• Your provincial or territorial funding partner. If you intend to request provincial matching, engage early enough to align with their priorities and process. This directly affects how quickly an award can be finalized within the nine-month window.
• Host facilities. If your infrastructure will be housed in a national or international facility, including one funded through the CFI’s Major Science Initiatives Fund, get the host’s approval before submitting the NOI.
• The Digital Research Alliance of Canada, if your project requests significant computing infrastructure, to discuss integration with the national platform.

Common Mistakes

Treating the NOI as a formality. It is not scored, but it determines the expertise pool for your review. A thin, jargon-heavy three-page description produces a mismatched committee.

Choosing the stream by convenience rather than definition. Stream 3 requires all requested infrastructure to be in a core facility, not most of it. Stream 2 requires the primary field of research to be SSHA. Mis-streaming can be fatal because the assessment sub-criteria differ.

Leaving a sub-criterion unaddressed. Reviewers score what is on the page. If something is not applicable, state that it is not applicable and why.

Underbuilding the sustainability case. IOF covers 30 percent of the CFI-funded value; it does not cover five years of service contracts, staffing and consumables. Reviewers look for a financial table that adds up and an access and governance model that will still function in year five.

Assuming a single flagship project justifies a Stream 3 request. Stream 3 proposals must demonstrate impact across a range of research activities — either through genuine multidisciplinarity or through an exceptionally broad user base within a narrower field.

Naming a large team without demonstrating fit. Ten names on a CV list is not evidence. A matrix mapping activities to expertise is.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an individual researcher apply? No. The CFI makes grants to eligible institutions, and applications are submitted by the institution through CAMS. Researchers lead and write projects, but the institution is the applicant and controls the envelope. Approach your research office first.

What is the minimum I can request? The CFI contribution must be at least $400,000. Because the CFI typically funds around 40 percent, total project costs are effectively required to exceed $1 million.

How competitive is it? The CFI uses institutional envelopes specifically to hold the overall success rate at approximately 30 percent. That is favourable compared with many open competitions — but it is measured after institutional pre-selection has already filtered out a large share of internal candidates.

Can team members be outside Canada? Yes. Teams may include individuals from different institutions, sectors and countries. The proposal asks you to identify whether team members or partner organizations are outside Canada, and whether any infrastructure will be housed outside Canada.

Can I request renovation or construction? Renovation and construction can be eligible. The Policy and program guide sets out what to include, including the construction plan PDF attachment required when requesting such funds. Institutional practice often caps these costs as a share of the project, so check with your research office.

Does aligning with defence or dual-use technology help my chances? No. The CFI has stated plainly that the budget, assessment criteria and review process are unchanged, and there is no set-aside or prioritization for these projects.

When will I know the outcome? The Board decision comes in November 2027 — roughly nine months after the proposal deadline, and about fourteen months after the NOI.

Official Links and Next Steps

• Program page and full timeline: innovation.ca — Innovation Fund
• The 2027 call for proposals is the authoritative document — it contains the tailored assessment criteria for each stream, the “important considerations” section on EDI, inclusive work environments, responsible data management and diverse benefits, and the table of institutional envelope allocations on its final page.
• The CFI’s Policy and program guide sets out eligible and ineligible costs, prorating rules and renovation requirements.
• A recorded information session and slide deck from June 2026 are posted on the program page, with a FAQ document to follow.
• Submissions run through the CFI Awards Management System (CAMS).

If you plan to be part of the 2027 competition, the concrete next step is an internal one: contact your institution’s research office this week and confirm whether their internal deadline for the 29 September NOI has passed. Institutional processes, not the CFI’s calendar, are what most often close the door on strong projects.

Facts in this guide are drawn from the CFI’s official Innovation Fund program page and its June 2026 applicant information session as published there. Envelope allocations, stream-specific sub-criteria and cost eligibility details should be confirmed against the 2027 call for proposals and the Policy and program guide before you commit to a submission.