Address · Ward 6 · James Pasternak
123 Garratt Blvd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 6 · James Pasternak
- Location
- 43.73582, -79.47141
- 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· 15 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Councillor James Pasternak | Councillor staff | 37 | 27 | 5 May 2022 |
| Ward 6 York Centre | Member of council | 16 | 13 | 5 May 2022 |
| Councillor Anthony Perruzza | Councillor staff | 5 | 4 | 17 June 2021 |
| Councillor Cynthia Lai | Councillor staff | 5 | 0 | 29 January 2021 |
| Councillor Mike Colle | Councillor staff | 4 | 0 | 29 January 2021 |
| Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek | Member of council | 4 | 3 | 17 June 2021 |
| Engineering & Construction Services | City staff | 2 | 0 | 19 March 2024 |
| Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 29 January 2021 |
| Vincent Crisanti | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 17 April 2023 |
| Councillor Pasternak | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 19 August 2019 |
| Councillor Paul Ainslie | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 25 January 2021 |
| Councillor Stephen Holyday | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 25 January 2021 |
| Ward 16 Don Valley East | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 21 January 2021 |
| Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 26 January 2021 |
| Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 25 January 2021 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM30540 | Northcrest Developments | 123 Garratt Boulevard | Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Develop… | 8 September 2020 – 8 September 2027 | 71 |
| SM28684 | Downsview Metro Devco | 123 Garratt Boulevard | Economic Development; Transportation - Metrolinx | 19 August 2019 – 19 August 2020 | 12 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
5- Submitted 21 July 2026Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 26 205778 NNY 06 OZUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 8 July 2026Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0248/26NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 18 May 2022Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 22 148540 NNY 06 OZCouncil Approved · Approved
- Submitted 18 May 2022Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 22 148583 NNY 06 SBDraft Plan Approved · Approved
- Submitted 7 June 2021Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 21 166685 NNY 06 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26 205778 NNY 06 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 21 July 2026 | Under Review In progress |
| A0248/26NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 8 July 2026 | Closed Approved |
| 22 148540 NNY 06 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 18 May 2022 | Council Approved Approved |
| 22 148583 NNY 06 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 18 May 2022 | Draft Plan Approved Approved |
| 21 166685 NNY 06 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 7 June 2021 | OMB Appeal In progress |
Linked lobbying registrations
No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.
Council and committee items naming this address
- 123 Garratt Boulevard - Inclusion on the Heritage Register2025.PB33.3 · 30 June 2025
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.
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
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 | 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 | 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.
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 6
2 lobbied · 14 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 | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 14 | 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.
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.