Address · Ward 3 · Amber Morley

162 North Queen St

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 1; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 2; 2 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 3 · Amber Morley
Location: 43.62025, -79.55699
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

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

SmartCentres REITSM33046 · 10 March 20222

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Ana Bailao1
Mark Grimes1

Data table· 2 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ana Bailao	Councillor staff	1	0	23 March 2022
Mark Grimes	Councillor staff	1	1	10 March 2022

All registrations· 1 row

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM33046	SmartCentres REIT	162 North Queen Street	Planning and Development	10 March 2022 – 30 December 2022	2

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 21 April 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 144160 WET 05 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)

Data table· 1 row

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
16 144160 WET 05 SA Development application	Site Plan Approval (SA)	21 April 2016	Closed 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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 3

24 lobbied · 100 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=5
Matched, unlobbied71% n=10

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied29%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied4%

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 3: 24 lobbied and 100 matched unlobbied applications in 18 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	24	—	100% (n=5)	0%	4%	0.25
Matched, unlobbied	100	—	71% (n=10)	29%	4%	0.14

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	449	—	100% (n=63)	0%	4%	0.07
Matched, unlobbied	1,236	—	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.