Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
100 Davenport Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Location
- 43.67384, -79.39107
- 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· 11 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 4 | 0 | 30 January 2018 |
| Dianne Saxe | Member of council | 4 | 2 | 17 July 2023 |
| Brad Bradford | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 12 June 2023 |
| Chris Moise | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 10 June 2023 |
| Gary Crawford | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 11 June 2023 |
| James Pasternak | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 12 June 2023 |
| Jennifer McKelvie | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 12 June 2023 |
| Jon Burnside | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 8 June 2023 |
| Michael Thompson | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 8 June 2023 |
| Mike Colle | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 8 June 2023 |
| Stephen Holyday | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 8 June 2023 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM33391 | Diamante Development Corporation | 100 Davenport Road. | Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 23 June 2022 – 30 April 2024 | 13 |
| SM33071 | Arenjay Developments Ltd. | 100 Davenport Road | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study; Planning and Development Application; Planning a… | 1 March 2022 – 30 April 2023 | 0 |
| SM25543 | Davenport Development Inc. (as GP for 100 Davenport Limited Partnership) | 100 Davenport Road | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 15 January 2018 – 31 December 2018 | 4 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
6- Submitted 21 October 2025Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0782/25TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 28 October 2021Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 21 231497 STE 11 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 28 October 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 231498 STE 11 SAAppeal Received · In progress
- Submitted 28 October 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 231502 STE 11 CDUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 24 March 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 132256 STE 27 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 9 December 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 262982 STE 27 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 6 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0782/25TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 21 October 2025 | Closed Approved |
| 21 231497 STE 11 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 28 October 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 21 231498 STE 11 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 28 October 2021 | Appeal Received In progress |
| 21 231502 STE 11 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 28 October 2021 | Under Review In progress |
| 16 132256 STE 27 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 24 March 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 15 262982 STE 27 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 9 December 2015 | 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
100 Davenport Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
21 231497 STE 11 OZ · submitted 28 October 2021 · Closed · from registration SM33391 (Diamante Development Corporation)
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 SM33391: I am working on the planning and development for 100 Davenport Road. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 21 231497 STE 11 OZ at 100 Davenport Rd: Zoning by-law Amendment application to permit a 19-storey mixed-use building, containing 42 dwelling units and 440 square metres of non-residential gross floor area. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: I am working on the planning and development for 100 Davenport Road.
Matched fields
- address
- 100 DAVENPORT RD
- application_address
- 100 DAVENPORT RD
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 11
16 lobbied · 354 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 | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 354 | 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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 11
69 lobbied · 60 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 69 | — | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 11% | 0.03 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (n=70) | 2% | 13% | 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.
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 11
46 lobbied · 113 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 46 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 9% | 0.09 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 113 | 1,629 | 100% (n=12) | 0% | 2% | 0.02 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 11
4 lobbied · 10 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 | 10 | 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.