Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
171 East Liberty St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.63852, -79.41861
- 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
6These 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· 9 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Councillor Joe Cressy | Councillor staff | 12 | 0 | 6 March 2020 |
| Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 11 | 10 | 27 June 2017 |
| Ward 12 York South-Weston | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 7 November 2012 |
| Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 7 November 2012 |
| Ward 18 Davenport | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 7 November 2012 |
| Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 7 November 2012 |
| Ward 36 Scarborough Southwest | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 7 November 2012 |
| Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 7 November 2012 |
| Mayor John Tory | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 1 October 2019 |
All registrations· 6 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM28937 | Liberty Market Tower | 171 East Liberty Street. | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B… | 1 October 2019 – 2 April 2025 | 13 |
| SM23935 | Liberty Market Building Inc. | 171 East Liberty St. | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B… | 19 January 2017 – 17 July 2020 | 1 |
| SM18252 | Liberty Market Building Inc. | 171 East Liberty Street | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 5 July 2012 – 5 July 2016 | 15 |
| SM17892 | Lifetime Developments | 171 East Liberty Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 12 March 2012 – 31 December 2017 | 5 |
| SM17895 | Liberty Market Tower | 171 East liberty street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 12 March 2012 – 11 February 2013 | 2 |
| SM11208 | Liberty Market Building Inc. | 171 East Liberty Street | Planning Application - Zoning By-law Amendment, Committee of Adjustment | 11 February 2008 – 22 July 2011 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
9- Submitted 6 September 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-5330445Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 3 February 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0121/21TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 4 December 2020Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 20 225581 STE 10 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 17 April 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0413/19TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 13 July 2017Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0066/17TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 5 April 2017Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0398/17TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 22 December 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 266871 STE 19 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 3 February 2014Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 14 112716 STE 19 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 14 September 2012Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 12 246860 STE 19 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 9 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| COA-5330445 Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 6 September 2023 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| A0121/21TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 3 February 2021 | Closed Approved |
| 20 225581 STE 10 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 4 December 2020 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0413/19TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 17 April 2019 | Closed Approved |
| B0066/17TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 13 July 2017 | Closed Approved |
| A0398/17TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 5 April 2017 | Closed Approved |
| 14 266871 STE 19 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 22 December 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 112716 STE 19 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 3 February 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 246860 STE 19 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 14 September 2012 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
Linked lobbying registrations
These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.
Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored
37 Hanna Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
14 112716 STE 19 OZ · submitted 3 February 2014 · Closed · from registration SM23935 (Liberty Market Building Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.83
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM23935: OPA & ZBA Applications in support of redevelopment of 171 East Liberty St. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 112716 STE 19 OZ at 37 Hanna Ave: This application proposes to permit the redevelopment of the most easterly portion of the site with a 32-storey mixed-use building consisting of ground floor retail, office floorspace on the 2nd to 7th storeys, residential units on the 8th to 32nd storeys and three levels of underground parking. A … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: OPA & ZBA Applications in support of redevelopment of 171 East Liberty St.
Matched fields
- address
- 171 EAST LIBERTY ST
- application_address
- 171 EAST LIBERTY ST
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 10
20 lobbied · 261 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
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 | 20 | 136 | 100% (n=20) | 0% | 0% | 14% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 261 | 138 | 93% (n=214) | 7% | 5% | 18% |
| 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.
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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 10
4 lobbied · 25 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 25 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 28 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 0% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 95 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.03 |
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.
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.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 26 | 184 | 79% (n=24) | 21% | 15% | 25% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 179 | 115 | 88% (n=133) | 12% | 3% | 25% |
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.
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 10
66 lobbied · 165 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 66 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 3% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 165 | 1,881 | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 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.
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 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 88 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 11% | 0.03 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 94 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 5% | 0.01 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (n=70) | 2% | 13% | 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.