Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
1 York St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.64127, -79.38055
- How this address was located
- Matched exactly to a City of Toronto address point.
Sources: City of Toronto Lobbyist Registry, Development Applications, Committee of Adjustment Applications and Address Points (open data). Lobbyist Registry · Development Applications · Committee of Adjustment · Address Points
Email alerts · at most one a day
Registrations that mention this address
3These registrations name this address in their particulars, after the address was standardised (street type and direction abbreviations). This is a text match, not an inferred link.
Registrations by communications
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
Data table· 7 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 12 | 2 | 1 November 2017 |
| Toronto Economic Development and Culture | City staff | 2 | 0 | 15 January 2018 |
| Toronto Office of Sponsorships | City staff | 2 | 0 | 16 January 2018 |
| Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 9 May 2018 |
| Office of Partnerships | City staff | 1 | 0 | 15 January 2018 |
| Mayor | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 14 September 2017 |
| Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 21 August 2017 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM26306 | Menkes Developments Ltd | 1 York Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 9 May 2018 – 16 July 2020 | 2 |
| SM24713 | Sun Life Financial | 1 York Street | Business Improvement Area (BIA); Economic Development | 15 June 2017 – 16 March 2018 | 14 |
| SM24066 | Sun Life Financial | 1 York Street | Business Improvement Area (BIA); Economic Development | 7 March 2017 – 31 December 2018 | 5 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
5- Submitted 19 September 2017Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0095/17TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 13 June 2017Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0051/17TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 16 September 2016Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 16 224007 STE 28 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 30 August 2016Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 16 215422 STE 28 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 19 October 2011Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 11 295626 STE 28 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| B0095/17TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 19 September 2017 | Closed Approved |
| B0051/17TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 13 June 2017 | Closed Approved |
| 16 224007 STE 28 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 16 September 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 215422 STE 28 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 30 August 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 295626 STE 28 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 19 October 2011 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
Linked lobbying registrations
These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.
Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored
90 Harbour St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
11 295626 STE 28 OZ · submitted 19 October 2011 · Closed · from registration SM15507 (Menkes)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.73
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM15507: 90 Harbour Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 295626 STE 28 OZ at 90 Harbour St: PROPERTY KNOWN AS BOTH 90 Harbour and 1 York St. Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application for new mixed use development - proposing 3 buildings (1 office tower and 2 residential buildings). Office tower 40 stories (158 metres). Two residential buildings 223 and 233 metres including mechanic… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 90 Harbour Street
Matched fields
- address
- 90 HARBOUR ST
- application_address
- 90 HARBOUR ST
90 Harbour St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
11 295626 STE 28 OZ · submitted 19 October 2011 · Closed · from registration SM17274 (Menkes Developments Ltd)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.79
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM17274: 90 Harbour Street, Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 295626 STE 28 OZ at 90 Harbour St: PROPERTY KNOWN AS BOTH 90 Harbour and 1 York St. Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application for new mixed use development - proposing 3 buildings (1 office tower and 2 residential buildings). Office tower 40 stories (158 metres). Two residential buildings 223 and 233 metres including mechanic… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 90 Harbour Street, Toronto
Matched fields
- address
- 90 HARBOUR ST
- application_address
- 90 HARBOUR ST
Council and committee items naming this address
None.
Comparison with similar applications
Committee of Adjustment applications
Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 26 | 184 | 79% (n=24) | 21% | 15% | 25% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 179 | 115 | 88% (n=133) | 12% | 3% | 25% |
Submission to hearing. Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.
Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.
Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.
Development applications
Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 10
4 lobbied · 25 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 25 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 28 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 0% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 95 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.03 |
Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.
Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.
Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.
Development applications
Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 10
88 lobbied · 94 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
571 lobbied · 760 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 88 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 10% | 0.03 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 94 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 5% | 0.01 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 571 | — | 100% (n=78) | 0% | 12% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 760 | — | 96% (n=78) | 4% | 14% | 0.05 |
Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.
Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.
Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.