Address · Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
18 Brownlow Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Location
- 43.70642, -79.39127
- 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
0These 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.
None.
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
No communications recorded.
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
7- Submitted 23 July 2025Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 25 198989 STE 12 SANOAC Issued · Approved
- Submitted 14 February 2025Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0144/25TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 19 April 2024Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0034/24TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 15 March 2024Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0027/24TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 11 December 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0051/24TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 29 May 2023Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 23 152381 STE 12 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 21 February 2018Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0206/18TEYClosed · Approved
Data table· 7 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 198989 STE 12 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 23 July 2025 | NOAC Issued Approved |
| A0144/25TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 14 February 2025 | Closed Approved |
| B0034/24TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 19 April 2024 | Closed Approved |
| B0027/24TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 15 March 2024 | Closed Approved |
| A0051/24TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 11 December 2023 | Closed Approved |
| 23 152381 STE 12 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 29 May 2023 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0206/18TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 21 February 2018 | Closed Approved |
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
18 Brownlow Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
23 152381 STE 12 SA · submitted 29 May 2023 · Closed · from registration SM35801 (QuadReal Real Property Group Limited Partnership)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.82
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 SM35801: Lobbying for redevelopment of our property located at 214-226 Soudan Ave & 19-21 Brownlow Ave (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 23 152381 STE 12 SA at 18 Brownlow Ave: The proposal continues to contemplate the redevelopment of the southern portion of the subject site with a new 21-storey (76.0 metres) residential building with a total gross floor area of 12,439 square metres and a total of 154 residential units. Three levels of underground parking are proposed to… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Lobbying for redevelopment of our property located at 214-226 Soudan Ave & 19-21 Brownlow Ave
Matched fields
- address
- 214-226 SOUDAN AVE
- application_address
- 200 SOUDAN AVE
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 12
32 lobbied · 72 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 32 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 3% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| 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.
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 12
20 lobbied · 357 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 | 106 | 50% (n=12) | 50% | 35% | 86% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 357 | 145 | 90% (n=291) | 10% | 5% | 30% |
| 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.
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.