lobbyTO

Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik

141 Bay St

Registrations naming this address
9
2 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
13
5 offices contacted
Applications at this address
8
23 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Location
43.64554, -79.37775
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

9

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

Top 8

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

  • Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale6
  • Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York3
  • Ward 37 Scarborough Centre2
  • Office of The City Manager1
  • Office of Deputy Mayor McConnel, Ward 281
Data table· 5 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 28 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council6621 September 2016
Ward 10 Spadina-Fort YorkMember of council338 January 2019
Ward 37 Scarborough CentreMember of council2221 June 2016
Office of The City ManagerCity staff113 June 2016
Office of Deputy Mayor McConnel, Ward 28Councillor staff1116 March 2016
All registrations· 9 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM25419141 Bay Street ULC141 Bay StreetPlanning and Development, Combined Application11 December 2017 – 31 December 20231
SM25422141 Bay Street ULC141 Bay StreetPlanning and Development, Combined Application11 December 2017 – 1 January 20221
SM25427141 Bay Street ULC141 Bay StreetPlanning and Development, Combined Application11 December 2017 – 24 March 20211
SM22961Ivanhoe Cambridge141 Bay StreetPlanning and Development, Combined Application1 April 2016 – 1 April 20200
SM22507Ivanhoe Cambridge141 Bay StreetEconomic Development16 November 2015 – 31 December 20263
SM22393Ivanhoe Cambridge141 Bay StreetEconomic Development29 October 2015 – 25 October 20162
SM22431Ivanhoe Cambridge141 Bay StreetEconomic Development; Planning and Development, Combined Application29 October 2015 – 31 October 20192
SM21032Ivanhoe Cambridge141 Bay StreetPlanning and Development, Combined Application13 November 2014 – 27 October 20182
SM20452Ivanhoe Cambridge141 Bay StreetPlanning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B…15 May 2014 – 13 November 20151

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

8
Data table· 8 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
20 144978 STE 10 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)13 May 2020Under Review
In progress
A1121/19TEY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)31 October 2019Closed
Approved
18 227344 STE 28 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)18 September 2018Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
18 199835 STE 28 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)25 July 2018Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
18 139405 STE 28 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)6 April 2018Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
15 208844 STE 28 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)18 August 2015Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
14 229173 STE 28 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)29 September 2014Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
14 209662 STE 28 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)21 August 2014Closed
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

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 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied3%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied66—100% (n=5)0%3%0.05
Matched, unlobbied165—100% (n=11)0%2%0.04
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—97% (n=98)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.

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 10

20 lobbied · 261 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied136
  • Matched, unlobbied138

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=20
  • Matched, unlobbied93% n=214

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied7%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied5%

Objection rate

  • Lobbied14%
  • Matched, unlobbied18%

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 10: 20 lobbied and 261 matched unlobbied applications in 8 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied20136100% (n=20)0%0%14%
Matched, unlobbied26113893% (n=214)7%5%18%
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.

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 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=7
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=7

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied10%
  • Matched, unlobbied5%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

571 lobbied · 760 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=78
  • Matched, unlobbied96% n=78

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied14%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 10: 88 lobbied and 94 matched unlobbied applications in 38 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied88—100% (n=7)0%10%0.03
Matched, unlobbied94—100% (n=7)0%5%0.01
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied571—100% (n=78)0%12%0.08
Matched, unlobbied760—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.