lobbyTO

Address · Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel

1891 Eglinton Ave E

Registrations naming this address
4
3 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
42
17 offices contacted
Applications at this address
9
4 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
Location
43.72493, -79.29585
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

4

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

  • Ward 35 Scarborough Southwest8
  • Gary Crawford5
  • Gary Crawford5
  • Councillor Gary Crawford4
  • Toronto Water3
  • Ward 35 Scarborough Southwest3
  • Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure Services2
  • Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest2
Data table· 17 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 35 Scarborough SouthwestMember of council8420 November 2013
Gary CrawfordCouncillor staff5320 June 2023
Gary CrawfordMember of council556 June 2023
Councillor Gary CrawfordCouncillor staff4023 February 2022
Toronto WaterCity staff3011 March 2024
Ward 35 Scarborough SouthwestCouncillor staff3021 November 2013
Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure ServicesCity staff2011 March 2024
Ward 20 Scarborough SouthwestMember of council2215 March 2022
Olivia ChowCouncillor staff224 July 2024
Councillor Michael ThompsonCouncillor staff1027 June 2022
Ward 12 York South-WestonMember of council1017 April 2012
Ward 16 Eglinton-LawrenceMember of council1017 April 2012
Ward 18 DavenportMember of council1017 April 2012
Ward 20 Trinity-SpadinaMember of council1017 April 2012
Ward 36 Scarborough SouthwestMember of council1017 April 2012
Ward 37 Scarborough CentreMember of council1127 April 2011
Ward 5 Etobicoke-LakeshoreMember of council1017 April 2012
All registrations· 4 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM33049Mattamy Homes Limited1891 Eglinton Avenue EastPlanning and Development; Planning and Development, Combined Application11 March 2022 – 31 May 202710
SM32967Mattamy Homes Canada1891 Eglinton Avenue EastBuilding Permits; Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law18 February 2022 – 18 August 202514
SM19851Myer Betel1891 Eglinton Avenue EastPlanning and Development Application, Zoning By-law12 November 2013 – 12 August 20144
SM15406Myer Betel1891 Eglinton Avenue EastPlanning and Development Application, Zoning By-law15 November 2010 – 13 July 201514

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

9
Data table· 9 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
B0030/22SC
Committee of Adjustment application
Consent (severance) (CO)6 October 2022Conditional Consent
Approved
22 208399 ESC 20 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)26 September 2022Under Review
In progress
22 208392 ESC 20 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)25 September 2022Under Review
In progress
22 208395 ESC 20 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)25 September 2022Under Review
In progress
22 208396 ESC 20 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)25 September 2022Under Review
In progress
20 224755 ESC 20 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)2 December 2020Appeal Received
In progress
20 224768 ESC 20 SB
Development application
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)2 December 2020OMB Appeal
In progress
20 158264 ESC 20 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)19 June 2020Appeal Received
In progress
11 325706 ESC 35 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)14 December 2011Closed
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

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 20

11 lobbied · 34 matched

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

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 20: 11 lobbied and 34 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied11Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied34Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—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.

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 20

13 lobbied · 19 matched

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

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 20: 13 lobbied and 19 matched unlobbied applications in 8 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied13Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied19Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied571—100% (n=78)0%12%0.08
Matched, unlobbied760—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

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 Subdivision (SB), Ward 20

1 lobbied · 1 matched

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

Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide

16 lobbied · 48 matched

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

Data table· 4 rows
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 20: 1 lobbied and 1 matched unlobbied applications in 1 matched stratum
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied1Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied1Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide: 16 lobbied and 48 matched unlobbied applications in 15 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied16Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied48Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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.