Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
120 Bremner Blvd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.64282, -79.38313
- 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· 5 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 7 | 4 | 29 September 2014 |
| Adam Vaughan, Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina | Councillor staff | 4 | 0 | 9 January 2014 |
| Office of Councillor Ceta Ramkhalawansingh, Ward20 | Councillor staff | 4 | 2 | 29 September 2014 |
| Office of Adam Vaughan, Ward 20 | Councillor staff | 3 | 0 | 26 March 2014 |
| Office of Adam Vaugan, Ward 20 | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 26 March 2014 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM19859 | BcIMC HOLDCO (2007) INC. | 120 Bremner Boulevard | Building Permits; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 18 November 2013 – 31 December 2014 | 13 |
| SM19638 | BcIMC HOLDCO (2007) INC. | 120 Bremner Boulevard | Building Permits; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 5 September 2013 – 31 December 2014 | 6 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 4 June 2010Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 10 189641 STE 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 17 May 2010Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 10 176348 STE 20 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 189641 STE 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 4 June 2010 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 10 176348 STE 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 17 May 2010 | 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
120 Bremner Blvd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
10 189641 STE 20 SA · submitted 4 June 2010 · Closed · from registration SM19638 (BcIMC HOLDCO (2007) INC.)
Evidence High confidence · score 1.00
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 SM19638: 120 Bremner Boulevard, Block 7B, Lower Simcoe Pedestrian Bridge 10 189641 STE 20 SA (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 10 189641 STE 20 SA at 120 Bremner Blvd: BLOCK 7B - Site plan approval application for construction of mixed use building - 2 towers - West Tower - Hotel - East Tower Office Space - Both 40 Stories - 3 levels below grade parking - 360 Cars + 24 Small Cars = 384 spaces - 4 Storey Podium. 566 Hotel Suites (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 120 Bremner Boulevard, Block 7B, Lower Simcoe Pedestrian Bridge 10 189641 STE 20 SA
Matched fields
- file_number
- 10 189641 STE 20 SA
Notes
The registration names this application's file number.
120 Bremner Blvd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
10 189641 STE 20 SA · submitted 4 June 2010 · Closed · from registration SM19859 (BcIMC HOLDCO (2007) INC.)
Evidence High confidence · score 1.00
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 SM19859: 120 Bremner Boulevard, Block 7B, Lower Simcoe Pedestrian Bridge 10 189641 STE 20 SA (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 10 189641 STE 20 SA at 120 Bremner Blvd: BLOCK 7B - Site plan approval application for construction of mixed use building - 2 towers - West Tower - Hotel - East Tower Office Space - Both 40 Stories - 3 levels below grade parking - 360 Cars + 24 Small Cars = 384 spaces - 4 Storey Podium. 566 Hotel Suites (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 120 Bremner Boulevard, Block 7B, Lower Simcoe Pedestrian Bridge 10 189641 STE 20 SA
Matched fields
- file_number
- 10 189641 STE 20 SA
Notes
The registration names this application's file number.
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 10
66 lobbied · 165 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 66 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 3% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 165 | 1,881 | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| 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 10
88 lobbied · 94 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 88 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 11% | 0.03 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 94 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 5% | 0.01 |
| 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.