lobbyTO

Address · Ward 13 · Chris Moise

2 Carlton St

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page
Registrations naming this address
2
1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations
4
2 offices contacted
Applications at this address
3
No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 13 · Chris Moise
Location
43.66156, -79.38290
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

2

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 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale3
  • Ward 13 Toronto Centre1
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council3230 April 2018
Ward 13 Toronto CentreMember of council1128 January 2020
All registrations· 2 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM26485Northam Realty Advisors Limited2 Carlton StPlanning and Development, Combined Application14 August 2018 – 15 April 20241
SM25642Northam Realty Advisors Limited2 Carlton StreetPlanning and Development, Combined Application9 February 2018 – 9 February 20233

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

3
Data table· 3 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
25 179288 STE 13 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)18 June 2025Under Review
In progress
21 216098 STE 13 SB
Development application
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)22 September 2021Under Review
In progress
16 232828 STE 27 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)4 October 2016Closed
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

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 13

56 lobbied · 128 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=8

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied7%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

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 13: 56 lobbied and 128 matched unlobbied applications in 32 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied56—100% (n=5)0%7%0.16
Matched, unlobbied128—100% (n=8)0%2%0.01
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.

Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 13

2 lobbied · 8 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 13: 2 lobbied and 8 matched unlobbied applications in 1 matched stratum
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied2Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied8Hidden: 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.

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 13

82 lobbied · 96 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=13
  • Matched, unlobbied90% n=14

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied10%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied11%
  • Matched, unlobbied16%

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 13: 82 lobbied and 96 matched unlobbied applications in 34 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied82—100% (n=13)0%11%0.15
Matched, unlobbied96—90% (n=14)10%16%0.08
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.