Address · Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
1161 Kingston Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
- Location
- 43.68191, -79.27977
- 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
1These 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· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parthi Kandavel | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 31 January 2024 |
| Parthi Kandavel | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 23 January 2024 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM35132 | 1161 Kingston Road Limited Partnership | 1161 Kingston Road | Building Permits; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 18 December 2023 – 14 August 2024 | 2 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 6 May 2025Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 25 155173 ESC 20 CDDraft Plan Approved · Approved
- Submitted 20 August 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0276/21SCTLAB Appeal · Refused
- Submitted 18 December 2020Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 20 230414 ESC 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 155173 ESC 20 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 6 May 2025 | Draft Plan Approved Approved |
| A0276/21SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 20 August 2021 | TLAB Appeal Refused |
| 20 230414 ESC 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 18 December 2020 | 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
1161 Kingston Rd · Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)
25 155173 ESC 20 CD · submitted 6 May 2025 · Draft Plan Approved · from registration SM35132 (1161 Kingston Road Limited Partnership)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.80
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 SM35132: Timeliness of and process-related issues pertaining to ongoing site plan approval conditions, and subsequent construction permitting for new condominium development located at 1161 Kingston Road, Scarborough. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 25 155173 ESC 20 CD at 1161 Kingston Rd: Proposal for a mixed-use condominium atop two levels of underground garage. There are 56 Residential Units. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: …ngoing site plan approval conditions, and subsequent construction permitting for new condominium development located at 1161 Kingston Road, Scarborough.
Matched fields
- address
- 1161 KINGSTON RD
- application_address
- 1161 KINGSTON RD
1161 Kingston Rd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
20 230414 ESC 20 SA · submitted 18 December 2020 · Closed · from registration SM35132 (1161 Kingston Road Limited Partnership)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.92
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 SM35132: Timeliness of and process-related issues pertaining to ongoing site plan approval conditions, and subsequent construction permitting for new condominium development located at 1161 Kingston Road, Scarborough. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 20 230414 ESC 20 SA at 1161 Kingston Rd: Site Plan Control Application proposing the development of an 8-storey mixed use building. The proposed GFA is 5,371 sq. m., comprised of 5,146 sq. m. residential and 225 sq. m. of grade related commercial space. The total number of dwelling units proposed is 57, comprised of 30 one bedroom units, … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: …ngoing site plan approval conditions, and subsequent construction permitting for new condominium development located at 1161 Kingston Road, Scarborough.
Matched fields
- address
- 1161 KINGSTON RD
- application_address
- 1161 KINGSTON 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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 2 rows
| 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.
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 20
9 lobbied · 295 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide
173 lobbied · 3,646 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 9 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 295 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 173 | 126 | 75% (n=154) | 25% | 19% | 43% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 3,646 | 114 | 91% (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 20
11 lobbied · 34 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 | 11 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 34 | 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.