lobbyTO

Address · Ward 16 · Jon Burnside

1123 Leslie St

Registrations naming this address
6
4 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
42
26 offices contacted
Applications at this address
2
3 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
Location
43.72315, -79.34729
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

6

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 16 Don Valley East6
  • Jon Burnside6
  • Mayor3
  • Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre2
  • Ward 21 Scarborough Centre2
  • Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt2
  • Jon Burnside2
  • John Tory1
Data table· 26 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 16 Don Valley EastMember of council625 November 2021
Jon BurnsideCouncillor staff624 February 2025
MayorMember of council306 December 2021
Ward 2 Etobicoke CentreMember of council2029 October 2021
Ward 21 Scarborough CentreMember of council214 November 2021
Ward 22 Scarborough-AgincourtMember of council2026 October 2021
Jon BurnsideMember of council2228 February 2023
John ToryCouncillor staff108 November 2021
Michael FordCouncillor staff113 November 2021
Ward 1 Etobicoke NorthMember of council1025 October 2021
Ward 13 Toronto CentreMember of council1113 October 2021
Ward 14 Toronto-DanforthMember of council1113 October 2021
Ward 15 Don Valley WestMember of council1025 October 2021
Ward 18 WillowdaleMember of council1025 October 2021
Ward 19 Beaches-East YorkMember of council1113 October 2021
Ward 20 Scarborough SouthwestMember of council1025 October 2021
Ward 23 Scarborough NorthMember of council1025 October 2021
Ward 24 Scarborough-GuildwoodMember of council1025 October 2021
Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge ParkMember of council1025 October 2021
Ward 3 Etobicoke-LakeshoreMember of council1025 October 2021
Ward 4 Parkdale-High ParkMember of council1113 October 2021
Ward 5 York South-WestonMember of council1113 October 2021
Ward 6 York CentreMember of council1025 October 2021
Ward 7 Humber River-Black CreekMember of council1025 October 2021
Ward 9 DavenportMember of council1113 October 2021
Brad BradfordMember of council1110 March 2023
All registrations· 6 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM37661Landmark Club Group Inc.1123 Leslie St.Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study; Planning and Development Application; Planning a…20 May 2026 – 20 May 20270
SM36326Landmark Club Group Inc.1123 Leslie St.Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development Application, Minor Variance4 February 2025 – 28 February 20251
SM34235OTT Financial Group1123 Leslie Street.Planning and Development Application; Official Plan24 February 2023 – 5 September 20232
SM34143OTT Properties Inc.1123 Leslie StreetPlanning and Development, Planning Policy / Study; Planning and Development Application; Planning a…6 February 2023 – 31 December 20266
SM32412OTT Properties Inc.1123 Leslie StreetBy-law / Regulation; Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan11 October 2021 – 31 December 202633
SM30996OTT Financial Inc1123 Leslie Street.Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning…12 December 2020 – 15 July 20210

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

2
Data table· 2 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
A0277/23NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)24 May 2023Closed
Approved
21 215481 NNY 16 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)21 September 2021Under Review
In progress

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 16

5 lobbied · 35 matched

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

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 16: 5 lobbied and 35 matched unlobbied applications in 4 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied5Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied35Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 16

10 lobbied · 23 matched

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

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 16: 10 lobbied and 23 matched unlobbied applications in 8 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied10Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied23Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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.