Address · Ward 6 · James Pasternak
15 Hove St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 6 · James Pasternak
- Location
- 43.75596, -79.44123
- 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
Data table· 7 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| James Pasternak | Member of council | 6 | 2 | 4 October 2024 |
| Anthony Perruzza | Member of council | 2 | 1 | 21 October 2024 |
| Jamaal Myers | Member of council | 2 | 1 | 5 November 2024 |
| Lily Cheng | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 4 October 2024 |
| Nick Mantas | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 4 October 2024 |
| Shelley Carroll | Member of council | 2 | 1 | 31 October 2024 |
| Michael Thompson | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 4 October 2024 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM35782 | David Mart Investment Limited | 15 Hove Street | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study; Transit / TTC; Transportation - Metrolinx | 24 July 2024 – 31 December 2026 | 17 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
1- Submitted 15 January 2026Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0034/26NYClosed · Approved
Data table· 1 row
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0034/26NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 15 January 2026 | Closed Approved |
Linked lobbying registrations
No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.
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 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.