Address · Ward 4 · Gord Perks
1990 Bloor St W
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 4 · Gord Perks
- Location
- 43.65290, -79.46904
- 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
3These 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· 4 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 13 Parkdale-High Park | Member of council | 9 | 2 | 12 December 2014 |
| Deputy City Manager | City staff | 2 | 2 | 6 September 2013 |
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 6 September 2013 |
| Mayor | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 23 April 2012 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM19612 | North Drive Investments Inc. | 1990 Bloor Street West | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 1 September 2013 – 9 July 2014 | 1 |
| SM17485 | North Drive Investments Inc. | 1990 Bloor St. W. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 24 November 2011 – 23 November 2013 | 1 |
| SM17453 | North Drive Investments Inc. | 1990 Bloor Street West | Planning and Development, Rental Housing Demolition or Conversion; Planning and Development Applica… | 15 November 2011 – 31 December 2019 | 11 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 3 June 2026Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0419/26TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 13 July 2016Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 16 190043 WET 13 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 28 March 2012Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 12 144934 WET 13 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 28 March 2012Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 12 144955 WET 13 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0419/26TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 3 June 2026 | Closed Approved |
| 16 190043 WET 13 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 13 July 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 144934 WET 13 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 28 March 2012 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 144955 WET 13 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 28 March 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
1990 Bloor St W · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
12 144955 WET 13 OZ · submitted 28 March 2012 · Closed · from registration SM17453 (North Drive Investments Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.72
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 SM17453: My company is seeking to rezone and an official plan amendemnt (if necessary) for a land assembly including two adjacent parcels: 1990 Bloor Street West and 26 Parkview Gardens. We are seeking to propose a new condominium with full rental replacement. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 144955 WET 13 OZ at 1990 Bloor St W: Proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 438-86 to permit the development of a 11 storey mixed use building (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: … is seeking to rezone and an official plan amendemnt (if necessary) for a land assembly including two adjacent parcels: 1990 Bloor Street West and 26 Parkview Gardens. We are seeking to propose a new condominium with full rental replacement.
Matched fields
- address
- 1990 BLOOR ST W
- application_address
- 1990 BLOOR ST W
1990 Bloor St W · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
12 144955 WET 13 OZ · submitted 28 March 2012 · Closed · from registration SM19612 (North Drive Investments 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 SM19612: 1990 Bloor Street West -- Rezoning Application (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 144955 WET 13 OZ at 1990 Bloor St W: Proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 438-86 to permit the development of a 11 storey mixed use building (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 1990 Bloor Street West -- Rezoning Application
Matched fields
- address
- 1990 BLOOR ST W
- application_address
- 1990 BLOOR ST W
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 4
8 lobbied · 130 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 8 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 130 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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 4
1 lobbied · 8 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 | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 8 | 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.
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 4
17 lobbied · 33 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 17 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 33 | 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 | 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.
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 4
12 lobbied · 20 matchedHidden: 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 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 12 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 20 | 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 | 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.