lobbyTO

Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik

1071 King St W

Registrations naming this address
13
4 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
124
15 offices contacted
Applications at this address
3
7 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Location
43.64075, -79.41700
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

Registrations that mention this address

13

These 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

Top 8

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

  • Transportation Services51
  • Ausma Malik25
  • Office of Councillor Cressy, Ward 1011
  • Councillor Joe Mihevc9
  • Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York6
  • Mayor's Office4
  • Olivia Chow4
  • Parks and Recreation3
Data table· 15 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Transportation ServicesCity staff51027 February 2023
Ausma MalikCouncillor staff25418 February 2025
Office of Councillor Cressy, Ward 10Councillor staff11031 March 2022
Councillor Joe MihevcCouncillor staff9120 July 2022
Ward 10 Spadina-Fort YorkMember of council6527 June 2022
Mayor's OfficeCouncillor staff411 June 2016
Olivia ChowCouncillor staff403 September 2025
Parks and RecreationCity staff3123 April 2026
Office of Councillor Mihevc, Ward 10Councillor staff3020 July 2022
Development Review DivisionCity staff2030 April 2026
Ausma MalikMember of council2021 August 2023
Brad BradfordMember of council101 December 2022
Chris MoiseCouncillor staff1010 February 2023
Dianne SaxeMember of council1010 February 2023
Mike ColleCouncillor staff105 October 2023
All registrations· 13 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM37575Hullmark Asset Management1071 King Street WestPlanning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Pla…16 April 2026 – 16 April 20275
SM36324Hullmark Asset Management1071 King Street West.Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Pla…4 February 2025 – 4 February 20266
SM35244Hullmark Asset Management1071 King Street West.Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Pla…22 January 2024 – 22 January 20271
SM35245Hullmark Asset Management1071 King Street West.Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Pla…22 January 2024 – 25 July 20241
SM33691Hullmark Asset Management1071 King Street West.Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Pla…21 September 2022 – 11 January 20243
SM33697Hullmark Asset Management1071 King Street West.Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan21 September 2022 – 11 January 20242
SM33558Hullmark Asset Management1071 King Street WestPlanning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Pla…22 August 2022 – 11 January 202437
SM33543Hullmark Asset Management1071 King Street West.Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Pla…19 August 2022 – 11 January 202428
SM33346Hullmark1071 King Street West.Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning…9 June 2022 – 9 February 202311
SM33057Hullmark Developments Limited1071 King Street WestParks / Open Space; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan14 March 2022 – 31 March 20271
SM27382First capital Realty1071 King St. W.Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan18 January 2019 – 31 December 20201
SM26478Hullmark Developments Limited1071 King Street WestPlanning and Development, Combined Application16 July 2018 – 31 March 202724
SM23053First capital Realty1071 King St. W.Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study; Transportation - Metrolinx28 April 2016 – 27 April 20174

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

3
Data table· 3 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
A0880/23TEY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)12 October 2023Closed
Approved
20 212841 STE 10 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)29 October 2020Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
11 251394 STE 19 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)4 August 2011Closed
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

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 10

20 lobbied · 261 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied136
  • Matched, unlobbied138

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=20
  • Matched, unlobbied93% n=214

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied7%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied5%

Objection rate

  • Lobbied14%
  • Matched, unlobbied18%

Minor variance (MV), City-wide

173 lobbied · 3,646 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied126
  • Matched, unlobbied114

Approval rate

  • Lobbied75% n=154
  • Matched, unlobbied91% n=3,058

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied25%
  • Matched, unlobbied9%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied19%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Objection rate

  • Lobbied43%
  • Matched, unlobbied27%
Data table· 4 rows
Minor variance (MV), Ward 10: 20 lobbied and 261 matched unlobbied applications in 8 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied20136100% (n=20)0%0%14%
Matched, unlobbied26113893% (n=214)7%5%18%
Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied17312675% (n=154)25%19%43%
Matched, unlobbied3,64611491% (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 10

66 lobbied · 165 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied3%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied66—100% (n=5)0%3%0.05
Matched, unlobbied165—100% (n=11)0%2%0.04
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—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 10

88 lobbied · 94 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=7
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=7

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied10%
  • Matched, unlobbied5%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

571 lobbied · 760 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=78
  • Matched, unlobbied96% n=78

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied14%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 10: 88 lobbied and 94 matched unlobbied applications in 38 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied88—100% (n=7)0%10%0.03
Matched, unlobbied94—100% (n=7)0%5%0.01
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied571—100% (n=78)0%12%0.08
Matched, unlobbied760—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.