157-159 Delaware Ave.

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 1; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 3; 1 offices contacted
Applications at this address: 2; No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items: 0; Items naming this address

About this address

Ward: Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Location: 43.66016, -79.42740
How this address was located: Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 157 DELAWARE AVE.

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

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

Smith, Clay, Wood LPSM37024 · 2 October 20253

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Jamaal Myers3

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Jamaal Myers	Councillor staff	3	0	21 October 2025

All registrations· 1 row

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM37024	Smith, Clay, Wood LP	157-159 Delaware Ave.	Building Permits	2 October 2025 – 31 December 2025	3

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 9 January 2026Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0015/26TEYClosed · Approved
Submitted 20 July 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0638/23TEYClosed · Approved

Data table· 2 rows

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
A0015/26TEY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	9 January 2026	Closed Approved
A0638/23TEY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	20 July 2023	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 9

27 lobbied · 333 matched

Median days

Lobbied169
Matched, unlobbied134

Approval rate

Lobbied67% n=27
Matched, unlobbied95% n=279

Refusal rate

Lobbied33%
Matched, unlobbied5%

Appeal rate

Lobbied26%
Matched, unlobbied6%

Objection rate

Lobbied29%
Matched, unlobbied30%

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 9: 27 lobbied and 333 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
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%

Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
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.