Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik

109 Ossington Ave

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 2; 2 client organisations
Communications on those registrations: 4; 2 offices contacted
Applications at this address: 2; No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items: 0; Items naming this address

About this address

Ward: Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Location: 43.64638, -79.41943
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

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

Ossington Community AssociationSM19110 · 19 March 20134
Hullmark Developments LimitedSM27735 · 18 March 20190

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Mike Layton2
Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina2

Data table· 2 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Mike Layton	Councillor staff	2	0	5 July 2013
Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina	Member of council	2	1	2 July 2013

All registrations· 2 rows

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM27735	Hullmark Developments Limited	109 Ossington Avenue	Economic Development	18 March 2019 – 31 March 2027	0
SM19110	Ossington Community Association	109 Ossington Ave.	Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B…	19 March 2013 – 18 March 2014	4

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 22 January 2016Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 16 107225 STE 19 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted 15 February 2012Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 12 122813 STE 19 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)

Data table· 2 rows

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
16 107225 STE 19 CD Development application	Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)	22 January 2016	Closed Closed (outcome not recorded)
12 122813 STE 19 OZ Development application	Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)	15 February 2012	Closed Closed (outcome not recorded)

Linked lobbying registrations

No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.

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.

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 10

4 lobbied · 25 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide

28 lobbied · 95 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=3
Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Data table· 4 rows

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 10: 4 lobbied and 25 matched unlobbied applications in 4 matched strata
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.

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide: 28 lobbied and 95 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
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

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 10

88 lobbied · 94 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=7
Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied11%
Matched, unlobbied5%

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

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

Lobbied1,925
Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=64
Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

Lobbied13%
Matched, unlobbied13%

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
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	88	—	100% (n=7)	0%	11%	0.03
Matched, unlobbied	94	—	100% (n=6)	0%	5%	0.01

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
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.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.