Accreditation and faculty control of online vs face-to-face this semester

[Ruralguy]

One of the frequent weapons used against curricular change is potential objection by accreditors, but then when asked to supply actual evidence of this, they never do.

[kiana]

Having tangled with administrators previously over nebulous claims about what accreditors allegedly require, I am suspicious of such claims offered by university officials unless they can be verified independently of administration claims.  YMMV up in Canada, but here in the US there is often far more flexibility in accreditation standards than university officials let on.  "Accreditation standards" are often an administration euphemism for "we want more revenue."

It seems almost like a cargo cult -- well, we know THIS format keeps the accreditors happy, so we just need to make all of our classes this exact format.

[Morden]

OP, I just looked at my province's regulations; an accredited institution doesn't need additional review/approval to add a delivery mode to an already approved program. It doesn't mention anything about removing a delivery mode (for example, if all the courses were online). It also indicates that if the program is regulated by an external body, programs must meet the regulatory requirements.
Take a look at your provincial government website.

[Caracal]

For what it's worth, I don't really think it is reasonable to assert that faculty should have the right to unilaterally choose their method of course delivery any more than they can unilaterally decide which courses to teach. What should be happening is that schools should be flexible to faculty needs and circumstances. That should mean finding ways to allow people who might be medically vulnerable to stay out of classrooms if they want to. It might also mean having more online classes when feasible to accommodate faculty who would prefer to be online. That all has to be worked out between departments, deans and instructors, however.