lobbyTO

Address · Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo

1120 Dupont St

Registrations naming this address
3
2 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
15
4 offices contacted
Applications at this address
1
1 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Location
43.66909, -79.43728
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

3

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

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

  • Ward 18 Davenport8
  • Office of Councillor Ana Bailao, Ward 184
  • Councillor Ana Bailao2
  • Office of Councillor Bailão1
Data table· 4 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 18 DavenportMember of council8228 March 2017
Office of Councillor Ana Bailao, Ward 18Councillor staff4028 March 2017
Councillor Ana BailaoCouncillor staff2016 February 2018
Office of Councillor BailãoCouncillor staff1015 July 2015
All registrations· 3 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM25626Talus Capital Corp.1120 Dupont StSigns6 February 2018 – 31 December 20192
SM24207Talus (Dupont) Ltd1120 Dupont StreetBy-law / Regulation16 March 2017 – 16 March 20185
SM21451Talus Capital Corp.1120 Dupont StreetPlanning and Development Application, Minor Variance17 February 2015 – 16 February 20208

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

1
Data table· 1 row
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
14 265327 STE 18 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)17 December 2014Closed
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

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 9

20 lobbied · 21 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=4
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=4

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=61
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 9: 20 lobbied and 21 matched unlobbied applications in 12 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied20—100% (n=4)0%0%0.05
Matched, unlobbied21—100% (n=4)0%0%0.10
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (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.