Address · Ward 3 · Amber Morley

170 North Queen St

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 1; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 4; 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 3 · Amber Morley
Location: 43.61916, -79.55842
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

Quaestus Management Corp.SM18214 · 19 June 20124

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore4

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore	Member of council	4	2	31 July 2014

All registrations· 1 row

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM18214	Quaestus Management Corp.	170 North Queen Street.	Planning and Development, Environmental Assessment; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By…	19 June 2012 – 19 June 2015	4

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 11 October 2013Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 13 250137 WET 05 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted 11 October 2013Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 13 250140 WET 05 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)

Data table· 2 rows

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
13 250137 WET 05 OZ Development application	Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)	11 October 2013	Closed Closed (outcome not recorded)
13 250140 WET 05 SA Development application	Site Plan Approval (SA)	11 October 2013	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.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 3

37 lobbied · 72 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=4
Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied16%
Matched, unlobbied15%

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 3: 37 lobbied and 72 matched unlobbied applications in 25 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	37	—	100% (n=4)	0%	16%	0.27
Matched, unlobbied	72	—	100% (n=6)	0%	15%	0.04

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	571	—	100% (n=78)	0%	12%	0.08
Matched, unlobbied	760	—	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.

Development applications

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.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.