Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
117 Peter St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.64823, -79.39298
- 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
4These 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· 5 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adam Vaughan | Councillor staff | 8 | 2 | 24 October 2011 |
| Office of Council Vaughan, Ward 20 | Councillor staff | 6 | 2 | 13 September 2010 |
| Legal Services | City staff | 4 | 0 | 6 September 2016 |
| Office of Councillor Cressy, Ward 20 | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 17 August 2016 |
| Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 2 | 1 | 3 November 2010 |
All registrations· 4 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM23449 | 2504121 Ontario Inc. | 117 Peter Street | Licences / Licensing | 15 August 2016 – 6 September 2016 | 6 |
| SM14772 | Richmond-Peter Inc | 117 Peter Street | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 21 July 2010 – 21 July 2011 | 7 |
| SM14228 | Malibu Investments Inc. | 117 Peter St | Richmond-Peter Planning & Development - Zoning Bylaw, Site Plan | 20 April 2010 – 31 December 2016 | 0 |
| SM13472 | Richmond-Peter Inc | 117 Peter Street | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 11 September 2009 – 10 August 2014 | 9 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
5- Submitted 5 May 2026Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0348/26TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 9 October 2014Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 14 235377 STE 20 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 9 October 2014Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 14 235404 STE 20 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 11 March 2011Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 11 143413 STE 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 7 August 2009Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 09 154905 STE 20 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0348/26TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 5 May 2026 | Closed Approved |
| 14 235377 STE 20 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 9 October 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 235404 STE 20 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 9 October 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 143413 STE 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 11 March 2011 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 09 154905 STE 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 7 August 2009 | 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
117 Peter St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
09 154905 STE 20 OZ · submitted 7 August 2009 · Closed · from registration SM13472 (Richmond-Peter Inc)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.77
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 SM13472: Proposal for mixed used building located at 117 Peter Street and 287 Richmond Street West. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 09 154905 STE 20 OZ at 117 Peter St: The revised application proposes a 36-storey mixed use building containing retail and office use in 4-storey podium and a 32-storey residential tower, 223 parking spaces are proposed underground. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposal for mixed used building located at 117 Peter Street and 287 Richmond Street West.
Matched fields
- address
- 117 PETER ST
- application_address
- 117 PETER ST
117 Peter St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
09 154905 STE 20 OZ · submitted 7 August 2009 · Closed · from registration SM14772 (Richmond-Peter Inc)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.77
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 SM14772: Proposal for mixed use building located at 117 Peter Street and 287 Richmond Street West (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 09 154905 STE 20 OZ at 117 Peter St: The revised application proposes a 36-storey mixed use building containing retail and office use in 4-storey podium and a 32-storey residential tower, 223 parking spaces are proposed underground. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposal for mixed use building located at 117 Peter Street and 287 Richmond Street West
Matched fields
- address
- 117 PETER ST
- application_address
- 117 PETER ST
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 10
20 lobbied · 261 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
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 | 20 | 136 | 100% (n=20) | 0% | 0% | 14% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 261 | 138 | 93% (n=214) | 7% | 5% | 18% |
| 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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 10
4 lobbied · 25 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| 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. | ||||
| 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
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 10
66 lobbied · 165 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 66 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 3% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 165 | — | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 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.
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 10
88 lobbied · 94 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
571 lobbied · 760 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 88 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 10% | 0.03 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 94 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 5% | 0.01 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 571 | — | 100% (n=78) | 0% | 12% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 760 | — | 96% (n=78) | 4% | 14% | 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.