Address · Ward 13 · Chris Moise
10 St Mary St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 13 · Chris Moise
- Location
- 43.66809, -79.38625
- 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
7These 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· 26 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 24 | 7 | 20 November 2018 |
| Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, Ward 27 | Councillor staff | 13 | 0 | 9 July 2018 |
| Office of Councillor K. Wong-Tam, Ward 27 | Councillor staff | 4 | 0 | 15 September 2016 |
| Ward 37 Scarborough Centre | Member of council | 4 | 0 | 27 May 2016 |
| Councillor Wong Tam, Ward 27 | Councillor staff | 3 | 1 | 3 November 2016 |
| Office of Councilllor Wong-Tam, Ward 27 | Councillor staff | 3 | 0 | 8 November 2018 |
| Ward 24 Willowdale | Member of council | 3 | 0 | 25 May 2016 |
| Ward 34 Don Valley East | Member of council | 3 | 0 | 25 May 2016 |
| Mayor's office | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 25 May 2016 |
| Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, Ward 13 | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 9 January 2019 |
| Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Councillor staff | 2 | 1 | 27 October 2015 |
| Ward 35 Scarborough Southwest | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 25 May 2016 |
| Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 6 June 2016 |
| Chris Moise | Member of council | 2 | 1 | 15 May 2023 |
| Kristyn Wong-Tam Ward 13 | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 11 December 2018 |
| Ward 13, Toronto Centre | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 11 December 2018 |
| Ward 33 | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 5 June 2016 |
| Ward 10 York Centre | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 25 May 2016 |
| Ward 12 York South-Weston | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 25 May 2016 |
| Ward 13 Toronto Centre | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 9 January 2019 |
| Ward 15 Eglinton-Lawrence | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 25 May 2016 |
| Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 25 May 2016 |
| Ward 18 Davenport | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 25 May 2016 |
| Ward 26 Don Valley West | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 25 May 2016 |
| Ward 36 Scarborough Southwest | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 25 May 2016 |
| Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 25 May 2016 |
All registrations· 7 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM27144 | Newpoint Developments Inc. | 10 St. Mary Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 11 December 2018 – 21 July 2022 | 0 |
| SM27145 | RFT Holdings Corp. | 10 St. Mary St. | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B… | 11 December 2018 – 11 December 2019 | 1 |
| SM23334 | Newpoint Developments Inc. | 10 St. Mary Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 11 July 2016 – 29 August 2022 | 2 |
| SM23318 | Newpoint Developments Inc. | 10 St. Mary Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 6 July 2016 – 31 December 2024 | 44 |
| SM23045 | Lifetime St. Mary Street Inc | 10 St. Mary Street. | Planning and Development, Heritage; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 26 April 2016 – 30 December 2016 | 21 |
| SM19992 | Lifetime Developments | 10 St. Mary Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 1 January 2014 – 31 December 2016 | 2 |
| SM19888 | Lifetime Developments | 10 St. Mary Street | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 27 November 2013 – 12 December 2016 | 11 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 23 September 2022Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A1168/22TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 23 July 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 188740 STE 13 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 19 August 2014Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 14 208729 STE 27 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1168/22TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 23 September 2022 | Closed Approved |
| 21 188740 STE 13 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 23 July 2021 | Under Review In progress |
| 14 208729 STE 27 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 19 August 2014 | 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
10 St Mary St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
21 188740 STE 13 SA · submitted 23 July 2021 · Under Review · from registration SM27144 (Newpoint Developments Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.76
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 SM27144: Matters relating to planning approvals for development of lands located at the northeast corner of St. Nicholas Street and St. Mary Street (inclusive of 75,81,85 St. Nicholas Street, 10 St. Mary Street, 710-718 Yonge Street) (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 21 188740 STE 13 SA at 10 St Mary St: Site Plan Approval for a 59-storey mixed-use building having a non-residential gross floor area of 8,107 square metres, and a residential gross floor area of 40,086 square metres. A total of 650 residential dwelling units are proposed. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: …for development of lands located at the northeast corner of St. Nicholas Street and St. Mary Street (inclusive of 75,81,85 St. Nicholas Street, 10 St. Mary Street, 710-718 Yonge Street)
Matched fields
- address
- 85 ST NICHOLAS ST
- application_address
- 85 ST NICHOLAS ST
10 St Mary St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
14 208729 STE 27 OZ · submitted 19 August 2014 · Closed · from registration SM19888 (Lifetime Developments)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.81
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 SM19888: 10 St. Mary Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 208729 STE 27 OZ at 10 St Mary St: To rezone the subject lands to develop a 51-storey residential tower at 10 St Mary Street and 79- 85 St. Nicholas Street. The designed heritage building and office space at 10 St. Mary Street is proposed to be retained. The applicant is proposing to demolish the listed building at 79 St. Nicholas S… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 10 St. Mary Street
Matched fields
- address
- 10 ST MARY ST
- application_address
- 10 ST MARY 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.
Minor variance (MV), Ward 13
5 lobbied · 76 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide
173 lobbied · 3,646 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 76 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 173 | 126 | 75% (n=154) | 25% | 19% | 43% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 3,646 | 114 | 91% (n=3,058) | 9% | 4% | 27% |
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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 13
56 lobbied · 128 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 56 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 7% | 0.16 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 128 | — | 100% (n=8) | 0% | 2% | 0.01 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 97% (n=98) | 3% | 3% | 0.04 |
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 13
82 lobbied · 96 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 | 82 | — | 100% (n=13) | 0% | 11% | 0.15 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 96 | — | 90% (n=14) | 10% | 16% | 0.08 |
| 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.