lobbyTO

Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik

160 Front St W

Registrations naming this address
2
2 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
13
6 offices contacted
Applications at this address
1
No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Location
43.64517, -79.38452
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

  • Mayor's Office6
  • Joe Cressy2
  • Mayor2
  • Chief of Staff, Mayor's Office1
  • Mayor Tory1
  • Ward 40 Scarborough-Agincourt1
Data table· 6 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Mayor's OfficeCouncillor staff6622 August 2018
Joe CressyCouncillor staff2221 October 2020
MayorMember of council2222 August 2018
Chief of Staff, Mayor's OfficeCouncillor staff1119 July 2018
Mayor ToryCouncillor staff1026 November 2018
Ward 40 Scarborough-AgincourtMember of council115 July 2018
All registrations· 2 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM27045Frontside Developments LP160 Front Street WestPlanning and Development, Combined Application; Real Estate / Property (City-owned); Signs20 November 2018 – 17 July 20191
SM26446The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited160 Front Street West.Economic Development5 July 2018 – 31 December 202612

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

1
Data table· 1 row
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
11 243742 STE 20 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)22 July 2011Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)

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

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.