Address · Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher
2 O'Connor Dr
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher
- Location
- 43.69249, -79.35597
- 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
4These 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· 3 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Councillor Ootes, Ward 29 | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 19 July 2010 |
| Mayor | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 26 March 2013 |
| Ward 29 Toronto-Danforth | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 6 November 2012 |
All registrations· 4 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM18666 | Sisters of St. Joseph of Toronto | 2 O'Connor Drive | By-law / Regulation; Parking | 6 November 2012 – 30 November 2015 | 2 |
| SM14744 | Sisters of St. Joseph for the Diocese of Toronto, in Upper Canada | 2 O'Connor Drive | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 15 July 2010 – 15 September 2010 | 1 |
| SM12999 | Sisters of St. Joseph | 2 O'Connor Drive | Planning and Development, Combined Application: Zoning By-law and Official Plan | 30 April 2009 – 29 April 2010 | 0 |
| SM12824 | Sisters of St. Joseph | 2 O'Connor Drive | Planning and Development, Combined Application (Zoning By-law and Official Plan) | 13 March 2009 – 1 June 2010 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 30 December 2008Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 08 232246 STE 29 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 30 December 2008Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 08 232254 STE 29 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08 232246 STE 29 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 30 December 2008 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 08 232254 STE 29 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 30 December 2008 | 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
2 O'connor Dr · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
08 232246 STE 29 OZ · submitted 30 December 2008 · Closed · from registration SM12999 (Sisters of St. Joseph)
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 SM12999: 2 O'Connor Drive, 2, 4, and 6 Fernwood Gardens (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 08 232246 STE 29 OZ at 2 O'connor Dr: OPA and Rezoning - redevelopment of proprety 30 assisted living suites, 35 private hospital beds, 3 guest suites and one chaplin suite (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 2 O'Connor Drive, 2, 4, and 6 Fernwood Gardens
Matched fields
- address
- 2 OCONNOR DR
- application_address
- 2 OCONNOR DR
2 O'connor Dr · Site Plan Approval (SA)
08 232254 STE 29 SA · submitted 30 December 2008 · Closed · from registration SM14744 (Sisters of St. Joseph for the Diocese of Toronto, in Upper Canada)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.84
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 SM14744: 2 O'Connor Drive (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 08 232254 STE 29 SA at 2 O'connor Dr: Site Plan Approval - redevelopment of property 30 assisted living suites, 35 private hospital beds, 3 guest suites and one chaplin suite, 2 connected buildings on one lot - 21 sub surface and 21 surface parking (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 2 O'Connor Drive
Matched fields
- address
- 2 OCONNOR DR
- application_address
- 2 OCONNOR DR
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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 14
18 lobbied · 28 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 | 18 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 28 | 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.
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 14
17 lobbied · 35 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 | 35 | 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.