I have a similar response.
It's interesting; my first position was at the University of Lethbridge, so it's a place I know well.
It's a smaller institution, by the way, and I would say that it has similar processes in place. We try to keep committees broadly representative, so that there are people from larger institutions and smaller institutions.
We also have a system of observers who sit in committees. These are academics who don't participate, but they listen and provide reports where they believe there are anomalies or issues.
Peer review is not a perfect process, as we all know. We can learn from this at the end of the day and make sure that instructions to committees are taken appropriately to make sure that certain things do not happen and certain assumptions are not made.
This is what we do, basically.