Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe

20 Meredith Cres

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 1; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 4; 2 offices contacted
Applications at this address: 1; 2 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items: 0; Items naming this address

About this address

Ward: Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Location: 43.67562, -79.38080
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

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

Branksome HallSM20006 · 15 January 20144

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, Ward 272
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale2

Data table· 2 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, Ward 27	Councillor staff	2	2	16 June 2014
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale	Member of council	2	2	16 June 2014

All registrations· 1 row

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM20006	Branksome Hall	20 Meredith Crescent	Planning and Development, Combined Application	15 January 2014 – 8 February 2016	4

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 24 December 2013Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 13 281206 STE 27 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)

Data table· 1 row

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
13 281206 STE 27 OZ Development application	Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)	24 December 2013	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 Elm Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
13 281206 STE 27 OZ · submitted 24 December 2013 · Closed · from registration SM20546 (Branksome Hall)
Evidence High confidence · score 1.00
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM20546: Branksome Hall (Application Nos. 13 281206 STE 27 SA and 13 281206 STE 27 OZ) (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 281206 STE 27 OZ at 2 Elm Ave: To extend the zoning of the campus to abutting properties listed as 120 Mount Pleasant Road, 20 Meredith Cres. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Branksome Hall (Application Nos. 13 281206 STE 27 SA and 13 281206 STE 27 OZ)
Matched fields
file_number
13 281206 STE 27 OZ
Notes
The registration names this application's file number.
2 Elm Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
13 281206 STE 27 OZ · submitted 24 December 2013 · Closed · from registration SM20006 (Branksome Hall)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.75
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 SM20006: 1-10 Elm Avenue, 120 Mt. Pleasant Road, 20 Meredith Crescent (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 281206 STE 27 OZ at 2 Elm Ave: To extend the zoning of the campus to abutting properties listed as 120 Mount Pleasant Road, 20 Meredith Cres. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 1-10 Elm Avenue, 120 Mt. Pleasant Road, 20 Meredith Crescent
Matched fields
address
1-10 ELM AVE
application_address
1 ELM 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.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 11

69 lobbied · 60 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=10
Matched, unlobbied100% n=4

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied10%
Matched, unlobbied11%

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 11: 69 lobbied and 60 matched unlobbied applications in 31 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	69	—	100% (n=10)	0%	10%	0.04
Matched, unlobbied	60	—	100% (n=4)	0%	11%	0.03

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
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.