September 2, 2025 Submissions
General Expert Panel comments
Comments made by the panel during its assessment of applications submitted to the September 2, 2025 deadline are outlined below. Please note that these comments provide a summary of the panel's assessment and do not necessarily relate to every application submitted to this deadline. The panel does not provide individual comments.
Project description
- The panel read many proposals and appreciated those where the applicants took the time to lay out their project description in sections and in a concise manner (3-5 pages maximum), with a clear main objective.
- The panel appreciated when applicants included a summary statement at the top of their application (1-2 sentences maximum) outlining what the applicant would do with the funds and where and when the project would take place (e.g., "Requesting $18,000 to support the development of a new script about [TOPIC], through qualitative research and workshop development from June to December 2026").
- The panel appreciated project descriptions that outlined the concrete steps involved in the creation process—beyond just summarizing the narrative—highlighting what the project entails from both a production management and dramaturgical perspective.
- For projects involving art forms that may appear tangential to theatre (e.g., podcasting, interdisciplinary arts, or unconventional projects), priority was given to proposals that included a compelling case for how the work aligned with the theatre sector, and/or would contribute to the theatre community.
- For training-based projects, the panel appreciated when applicants clearly articulated why they were pursuing the training program, why the timing was appropriate, and what they planned to do with the skills gained after program completion.
- The panel appreciated when applicants explained why they were the appropriate person to tell the stories proposed in their application, especially in cases where the subject matter was personal, culturally specific, or community based.
- For research projects, the panel valued clarity around the scope of inquiry, including which literature would be reviewed, who would be interviewed, and what the intended outcomes or end goals of the research would be.
- The panel noted that applications combining multiple distinct projects (e.g., developing two or three separate scripts at once) were more difficult to assess.
- Applicants are encouraged to focus on a single project per application. Note that the AFA only allows one project per application, and in some cases proposals that appeared to merge projects made determining eligibility difficult.
- For projects involving script workshop development or rewrites, the panel valued clarity around what specific aspects of the work the applicant intended to refine or explore further. A justification for why a rewrite was necessary, especially for scripts that appeared complete, was helpful.
- The panel appreciated when applicants clearly identified the scope of the work being undertaken with the funding request, especially when the proposed activity was part of a larger project not fully covered by the grant.
- For projects with longer timelines (e.g., 12 months or more), the panel emphasized the importance of clearly outlining the activities planned throughout the duration.
- This was particularly important when subsistence costs formed a significant portion of the budget. Applicants were encouraged to explain why the extended timeline was necessary.
- The panel valued when applicants provided contingency plans outlining how they would proceed with their project if AFA funding was not received. This was especially important for projects scheduled to begin before notification of funding results.
- For projects with significant pending revenues from other sources, the panel appreciated when applicants included contingency plans outlining how the project would proceed if only AFA funding was confirmed.
- For projects adapting other intellectual properties, the panel appreciated when applicants made transparent that legal ramifications were considered as part of their proposal. If letters or contracts were available, including these helped build confidence in the project's success, as well.
- The panel emphasized that applicants connected to incorporated entities must clearly demonstrate a focus on individual artistic or skill development, undertaken entirely at arm's length. Having no business involvement helped ensure projects were compliant with grant guidelines.
Budget
- The panel appreciated when information in the budget section in GATE Front Office paralleled information in the project description. When numbers didn’t match, it made it hard for panelists to understand project scope.
- The panel appreciated when applicants provided context for how applicants identified their expense amounts, including how all artists compensation amounts were calculated. They especially appreciated when quotes or invoices were provided, particularly for larger or specialized expenses.
- The panel felt strongly about ensuring there was evidence of fair pay to artists across all recommended projects. It was particularly valuable when applicants referenced industry standard rates from professional associations which are available online (i.e.: Canada Actors Equity Association, Playwrights Guild of Canada, Associated Designers of Canada).
- The panel appreciated when applicants used the comments section of the budget sheet to explain how they defined their own units for each expense line item (e.g., “Actors Fees (Actors at $1,000/week for 4 weeks)” -- 4 Units -- $1,000 = $4,000 Total).
- For projects involving ticket sales as a revenue source, the panel appreciated when applicants explained how estimates for these were calculated.
- The panel recommends future applicants separate their subsistence costs into individual expense lines (i.e.: housing, local transport, food, childcare, dependent care).
- The panel appreciated when applicants limited their budget to activities directly supported within the scope of the AFA request. If broader budget details for future phases were important to the application, these were best included as support materials rather than within the budget in GATE.
- For projects with alternate revenue sources, it was helpful when applicants identified which expense items would be covered by each revenue source. This was specifically helpful when artists were including personal contributions.
Support material
- The panel appreciated when applicants explained why they provided the support materials they did. Particularly in the cases where support materials did not pertain to the proposal, a description of the relevance to the current project was helpful.
- The panel appreciated when applicants attached resumes for all collaborators on their project. They especially appreciated when the resumes showed evidence of experience in the roles that artists would be filling within your project. Including details such as director, company, and venue for each theatre production was helpful.
- Letters of support or identified mentors/team members were helpful, especially for emerging artists, as they gave the panel confidence in the artists’ abilities to complete their projects.
- Reference letters from individuals not financially benefitting from the project were considered more impactful than those from collaborators with a vested interest in the grant application. Letters of confirmation from collaborators or partners were also appreciated.
- The panel appreciated when applicants submitted an excerpt as a writing sample and preferred that the sample be specific to the project being applied for, as opposed to a sample from past writing. An excerpt was preferred over submitting a full script.
- For projects involving video submissions, the panel appreciated when applicants edited the footage to highlight the most relevant content, avoiding extraneous material.
- For music-based projects (e.g., musicals), the panel appreciated when applicants included recorded samples of the music to help assess musical ability. Submitting only musical scores was less effective, particularly for panelists without music-reading expertise. The panel appreciated these recordings, even if they had been informally recorded (e.g., with a phone).
- For projects that involved collaborations with other organizations or public entities, it was helpful when letters of support from those organizations were attached to show that there was an established relationship and vested interest in the project.
- It was appreciated when artists provided PDFs of their attachments versus using Microsoft Word, as then formatting is not lost.