lobbyTO

Address · Ward 6 · James Pasternak

1755 Steeles Ave W

Registrations naming this address
3
2 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
162
28 offices contacted
Applications at this address
10
No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 6 · James Pasternak
Location
43.78466, -79.46268
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

3

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

Data table· 28 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Economic Development and Culture DivisionCity staff462124 April 2026
Economic Development & CultureCity staff19124 July 2018
Economic Development and CultureCity staff14722 January 2024
Ward 10 York CentreMember of council11327 April 2018
James PasternakMember of council11716 September 2026
Olivia ChowCouncillor staff10312 November 2025
James PasternakCouncillor staff8210 November 2025
Mayor's OfficeCouncillor staff513 March 2023
Shelley CarrollMember of council545 March 2026
Office of Councillor PasternakCouncillor staff402 May 2018
Ward 37 Scarborough CentreMember of council316 July 2018
Olivia ChowMember of council3316 September 2026
Shelley CarrollCouncillor staff325 March 2026
Engineering Construction ServicesCity staff2011 April 2018
Office of Councillor ThompsonCouncillor staff208 April 2018
Ward 16 Eglinton-LawrenceMember of council2111 January 2017
Ward 24 WillowdaleMember of council2111 April 2017
Ward 8 York WestMember of council2112 June 2017
Business Growth ServicesCity staff116 December 2024
Engineering & Construction ServicesCity staff1131 March 2017
Office of Councillor Carmichael-Greb Ward 16Councillor staff118 June 2017
MayorMember of council102 May 2018
Ward 15 Eglinton-LawrenceMember of council1026 May 2017
Ward 25 Don Valley WestMember of council1026 May 2017
Ward 26 Don Valley WestMember of council1026 May 2017
Ward 34 Don Valley EastMember of council1111 January 2017
Ward 9 York CentreMember of council1026 May 2017
Jon BurnsideCouncillor staff105 July 2024
All registrations· 3 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM36241Sanofi Vaccines Canada Ltd.1755 Steeles Avenue W.Economic Development; Planning and Development; Public Health6 January 2025 – 31 December 202625
SM30503Sanofi Vaccines Canada Ltd.1755 Steeles Avenue W.Economic Development; Planning and Development Application27 August 2020 – 31 December 202678
SM23610sanofi pasteur limited1755 Steeles Avenue WestBuilding Permits; Economic Development; Planning and Development, Combined Application14 October 2016 – 27 February 202659

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

10
Data table· 10 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
B0020/22NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Consent (severance) (CO)6 May 2022Closed
Approved
21 136188 NNY 06 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)6 April 2021Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
20 210682 NNY 06 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)26 October 2020Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
20 210685 NNY 06 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)26 October 2020Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
20 210843 NNY 06 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)26 October 2020Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
A0688/17NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)21 July 2017Closed
Approved
16 245598 NNY 10 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)1 November 2016Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
16 245607 NNY 10 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)1 November 2016Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
15 269026 NNY 10 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)24 December 2015Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
08 189386 NNY 10 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)1 August 2008Closed
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

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 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied184
  • Matched, unlobbied115

Approval rate

  • Lobbied79% n=24
  • Matched, unlobbied88% n=133

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied21%
  • Matched, unlobbied12%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied15%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Objection rate

  • Lobbied25%
  • Matched, unlobbied25%
Data table· 2 rows
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide: 26 lobbied and 179 matched unlobbied applications in 21 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied2618479% (n=24)21%15%25%
Matched, unlobbied17911588% (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 6

17 lobbied · 41 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=61
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 6: 17 lobbied and 41 matched unlobbied applications in 12 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied17Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied41Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (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 6

13 lobbied · 16 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied1,925
  • Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=64
  • Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied13%
  • Matched, unlobbied13%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 6: 13 lobbied and 16 matched unlobbied applications in 12 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied13Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied16Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5731,925100% (n=64)0%13%0.08
Matched, unlobbied7631,79398% (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.

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 6

2 lobbied · 14 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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 6: 2 lobbied and 14 matched unlobbied applications in 2 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied2Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied14Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied17312675% (n=154)25%19%43%
Matched, unlobbied3,64611491% (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.