Address · Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
1245 Dupont St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
- Location
- 43.66770, -79.44081
- 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· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 9 Davenport | Member of council | 3 | 3 | 20 January 2021 |
| Ward 18 Davenport | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 28 November 2013 |
All registrations· 4 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM28557 | ELADCANADA | 1245 Dupont Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 9 July 2019 – 9 July 2020 | 0 |
| SM28465 | ELADCANADA | 1245 Dupont Street | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 20 June 2019 – 31 December 2022 | 2 |
| SM28466 | ELADCANADA | 1245 Dupont Street | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 20 June 2019 – 31 May 2021 | 1 |
| SM19884 | Rice Commercial Group Limited | 1245 Dupont St. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 26 November 2013 – 31 July 2016 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
15- Submitted 25 March 2026Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 26 134638 STE 09 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 26 January 2026Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 26 109087 STE 09 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 24 December 2024Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 24 253550 STE 09 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 22 November 2023Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 23 228598 STE 09 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 22 November 2023Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 23 228729 STE 09 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 5 April 2022Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 22 130626 STE 09 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
- Submitted 27 July 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0972/21TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 18 March 2021Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 21 129062 STE 09 PLUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 17 August 2020Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 20 181703 STE 09 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 30 April 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 147116 STE 09 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 22 March 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 129482 STE 09 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 23 August 2018Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 18 214150 STE 18 SBUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 17 August 2018Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0081/18TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 2 May 2018Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 18 152282 STE 18 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 30 September 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 231334 STE 18 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 15 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26 134638 STE 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 25 March 2026 | Under Review In progress |
| 26 109087 STE 09 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 26 January 2026 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 24 253550 STE 09 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 24 December 2024 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 23 228598 STE 09 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 22 November 2023 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 23 228729 STE 09 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 22 November 2023 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 22 130626 STE 09 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 5 April 2022 | OMB Appeal In progress |
| A0972/21TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 27 July 2021 | Closed Approved |
| 21 129062 STE 09 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 18 March 2021 | Under Review In progress |
| 20 181703 STE 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 17 August 2020 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 19 147116 STE 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 30 April 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 19 129482 STE 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 22 March 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 214150 STE 18 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 23 August 2018 | Under Review In progress |
| B0081/18TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 17 August 2018 | Closed Approved |
| 18 152282 STE 18 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 2 May 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 231334 STE 18 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 30 September 2016 | 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
1245 Dupont St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
19 147116 STE 09 SA · submitted 30 April 2019 · Closed · from registration SM28466 (ELADCANADA)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.73
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 SM28466: Galleria Mall - 1245 Dupont Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 19 147116 STE 09 SA at 1245 Dupont St: BLOCK 6 of the Galleria Devlopment together with part of City Park Lands: Site Plan Control Application. Proposed community centre that will replace existing Wallace Emerson Community Centre. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Galleria Mall - 1245 Dupont Street
Matched fields
- address
- 1245 DUPONT ST
- application_address
- 1245 DUPONT ST
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 9
20 lobbied · 21 matchedApproval 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 | 20 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 21 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 0% | 0.10 |
| 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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 9
2 lobbied · 4 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 | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 4 | 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.
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL), City-wide
2 lobbied · 6 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 6 | 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.
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 9
19 lobbied · 28 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 | 19 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 28 | 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.
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 9
27 lobbied · 333 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 | 27 | 169 | 67% (n=27) | 33% | 26% | 29% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 333 | 134 | 95% (n=279) | 5% | 6% | 30% |
| 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 9
1 lobbied · 3 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 | 3 | 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.
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.
Consent (severance) (CO), Ward 9
2 lobbied · 7 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 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 | 7 | 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 | 26 | 184 | 79% (n=24) | 21% | 15% | 25% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 179 | 115 | 88% (n=133) | 12% | 3% | 25% |
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.