Address · Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
1020 McNicoll Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
- Location
- 43.80576, -79.33601
- 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
6These 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· 4 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nick Mantas | Councillor staff | 6 | 1 | 10 July 2026 |
| Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt | Member of council | 5 | 2 | 23 March 2021 |
| Office of Councillor Mantas, Ward 22 | Councillor staff | 4 | 0 | 10 March 2021 |
| Nick Mantas | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 30 March 2026 |
All registrations· 6 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM37493 | Tendercare Nursing Home Ltd. | 1020 McNicoll Avenue | Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Develop… | 13 March 2026 – 12 March 2027 | 2 |
| SM37451 | Extendicare | 1020 McNicoll Avenue | Planning and Development Application | 3 March 2026 – 31 December 2026 | 6 |
| SM31387 | Tendercare Living Centre | 1020 McNicoll Avenue. | Planning and Development Application; Official Plan | 10 March 2021 – 19 March 2024 | 4 |
| SM31388 | Tendercare Living Centre | 1020 McNicoll Avenue. | Planning and Development Application; Official Plan | 10 March 2021 – 19 September 2023 | 5 |
| SM28976 | Tendercare Nursing Homes Ltd | 1020 McNicoll Av | Long-term Care; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 8 October 2019 – 31 December 2021 | 0 |
| SM27028 | Tendercare Nursing Homes Ltd | 1020 McNicoll Av. | Long-term Care; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 16 November 2018 – 31 December 2018 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 10 March 2026Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 26 127597 ESC 22 OZCouncil Approved · Approved
- Submitted 21 January 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0023/19SCClosed · Approved
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26 127597 ESC 22 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 10 March 2026 | Council Approved Approved |
| A0023/19SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 21 January 2019 | Closed Approved |
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
1020 Mcnicoll Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
26 127597 ESC 22 OZ · submitted 10 March 2026 · Council Approved · from registration SM37493 (Tendercare Nursing Home Ltd.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.86
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 SM37493: 1020 McNicoll Avenue, Toronto, ON Rezoning, Site Plan Control (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 26 127597 ESC 22 OZ at 1020 Mcnicoll Ave: Proposal for a new 9-storey long-term care home with approximately 512 beds on the southern portion of the site and retaining the existing building on the north portion of the site.Please note that the applicant intends to submit a severance application that will sever the vacant southern portion o… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 1020 McNicoll Avenue, Toronto, ON Rezoning, Site Plan Control
Matched fields
- address
- 1020 MCNICOLL AVE
- application_address
- 1020 MCNICOLL AVE
Council and committee items naming this address
None.
Comparison with similar applications
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 22
6 lobbied · 8 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 6 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 8 | 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 | 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.
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 22
1 lobbied · 4 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 | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 4 | 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.