Address · Ward 6 · James Pasternak
1201 Wilson Ave
- Communications on those registrations
- 0
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 6 · James Pasternak
- Location
- 43.72273, -79.48734
- 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
No communications recorded.
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM14405 | Humber River Regional Hospital | 1201 Wilson Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 10 May 2010 – 31 December 2011 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
6- Submitted 4 January 2012Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 12 101243 NNY 09 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 18 January 2010Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 10 105560 NNY 09 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 30 October 2009Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 09 183948 NNY 09 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 2 February 2009Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 09 106294 NNY 09 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 2 February 2009Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 09 106314 NNY 09 SBApproved · Approved
- Submitted 24 December 2008Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 08 231959 NNY 09 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 6 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12 101243 NNY 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 4 January 2012 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 10 105560 NNY 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 18 January 2010 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 09 183948 NNY 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 30 October 2009 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 09 106294 NNY 09 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 2 February 2009 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 09 106314 NNY 09 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 2 February 2009 | Approved Approved |
| 08 231959 NNY 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 24 December 2008 | 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
1201 Wilson Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
09 106294 NNY 09 OZ · submitted 2 February 2009 · Closed · from registration SM14405 (Humber River Regional Hospital)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.82
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 SM14405: Rezoning Application - 1201 Wilson Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 09 106294 NNY 09 OZ at 1201 Wilson Ave: Redevelop with mixed uses including the Humber River Regional Hospital (HRRH), Forensics Service and Cornoners Complex (FSCC) and provincial office buildings (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Rezoning Application - 1201 Wilson Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 1201 WILSON AVE
- application_address
- 1201 WILSON AVE
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 6
17 lobbied · 41 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 | 17 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 41 | 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 6
13 lobbied · 16 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 | 13 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 16 | 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.
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 Subdivision (SB), Ward 6
1 lobbied · 1 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 1 | 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 | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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.