Address · Ward 2 · Stephen Holyday
1144 Royal York Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 2 · Stephen Holyday
- Location
- 43.66110, -79.51793
- 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
2These 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· 16 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 3 | 2 | 7 June 2013 |
| Ward 10 York Centre | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 7 June 2013 |
| Ward 26 Don Valley West | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 6 June 2013 |
| Ward 4 Etobicoke Centre | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 23 April 2013 |
| Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 3 May 2013 |
| Mayor | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 13 August 2012 |
| Ward 15 Eglinton-Lawrence | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 5 June 2013 |
| Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 5 June 2013 |
| Ward 18 Davenport | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 4 June 2013 |
| Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 5 June 2013 |
| Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 6 June 2013 |
| Ward 32 Beaches-East York | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 5 June 2013 |
| Ward 33 Don Valley East | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 5 June 2013 |
| Ward 34 Don Valley East | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 6 June 2013 |
| Ward 35 Scarborough Southwest | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 5 June 2013 |
| Ward 37 Scarborough Centre | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 5 June 2013 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM18345 | First capital Realty | 1144 Royal York Road | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 13 August 2012 – 31 December 2013 | 8 |
| SM18181 | First Capital Asset Management | 1144 Royal York Road | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 4 June 2012 – 19 July 2013 | 14 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 12 June 2018Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 18 176381 WET 04 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 21 June 2013Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 13 192551 WET 04 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 24 January 2012Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 12 111249 WET 04 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18 176381 WET 04 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 12 June 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 13 192551 WET 04 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 21 June 2013 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 111249 WET 04 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 24 January 2012 | Closed 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
270 The Kingsway · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
12 111249 WET 04 OZ · submitted 24 January 2012 · Closed · from registration SM18181 (First Capital Asset Management)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.94
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM18181: Assist with the rezoning application for Humbertown Shopping Centre- 259 and 270 The Kingsway, and 1144 Royal York Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 111249 WET 04 OZ at 270 The Kingsway: Proposal for a mixed use development (Humbertown) at 259, 270 The Kingsway and 1144 Royal York Road. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Assist with the rezoning application for Humbertown Shopping Centre- 259 and 270 The Kingsway, and 1144 Royal York Road
Matched fields
- address
- 1144 ROYAL YORK RD
- application_address
- 1144 ROYAL YORK RD
270 The Kingsway · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
12 111249 WET 04 OZ · submitted 24 January 2012 · Closed · from registration SM18345 (First capital Realty)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.78
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 SM18345: Rezoning Humbertown Shopping Centre - 259 and 270 The Kingsway and 1144 Royal York Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 111249 WET 04 OZ at 270 The Kingsway: Proposal for a mixed use development (Humbertown) at 259, 270 The Kingsway and 1144 Royal York Road. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Rezoning Humbertown Shopping Centre - 259 and 270 The Kingsway and 1144 Royal York Road
Matched fields
- address
- 1144 ROYAL YORK RD
- application_address
- 1144 ROYAL YORK RD
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 2
5 lobbied · 15 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 15 | 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 | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (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.
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 2
9 lobbied · 10 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 9 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 10 | 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 | 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.
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.