lobbyTO

Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe

13 Essex St

Registrations naming this address
2
2 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
17
3 offices contacted
Applications at this address
1
1 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Location
43.66788, -79.42102
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

Registrations that mention this address

2

These 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

  • Councillor Layton10
  • Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina6
  • Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina1
Data table· 3 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Councillor LaytonCouncillor staff10127 June 2018
Ward 19 Trinity-SpadinaMember of council639 July 2018
Ward 20 Trinity-SpadinaMember of council109 July 2018
All registrations· 2 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM25222Salina Properties Inc13 Essex StreetPlanning and Development Application, Minor Variance27 October 2017 – 17 October 201816
SM21874Essex Properties Inc13 Essex StPlanning and Development Application, Minor Variance25 May 2015 – 18 January 20161

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

1
Data table· 1 row
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
A0217/18TEY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)27 February 2018Closed
Approved

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

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 11

16 lobbied · 354 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Minor variance (MV), City-wide

173 lobbied · 3,646 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied126
  • Matched, unlobbied114

Approval rate

  • Lobbied75% n=154
  • Matched, unlobbied91% n=3,058

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied25%
  • Matched, unlobbied9%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied19%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Objection rate

  • Lobbied43%
  • Matched, unlobbied27%
Data table· 4 rows
Minor variance (MV), Ward 11: 16 lobbied and 354 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied16Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied354Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied17312675% (n=154)25%19%43%
Matched, unlobbied3,64611491% (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.