Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik

200 Queens Quay W

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 1; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 19; 3 offices contacted
Applications at this address: 6; No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items: 0; Items naming this address

About this address

Ward: Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Location: 43.64048, -79.38174
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

Diamond CorpSM28818 · 5 September 201919

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York12
Ausma Malik4
Councillor Joe Cressy3

Data table· 3 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York	Member of council	12	3	29 June 2022
Ausma Malik	Member of council	4	2	2 March 2023
Councillor Joe Cressy	Councillor staff	3	0	6 April 2020

All registrations· 1 row

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM28818	Diamond Corp	200 Queen's Quay West	Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law	5 September 2019 – 31 December 2026	19

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 12 August 2026Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0587/26TEYApplication Withdrawn · Withdrawn
Submitted 22 September 2025Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0721/25TEYClosed · Approved
Submitted 26 October 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0925/23TEYClosed · Approved
Submitted 13 April 2022Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 22 133939 STE 10 SANOAC Issued · Approved
Submitted 3 November 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 233472 STE 10 CDUnder Review · In progress
Submitted 8 June 2020Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 20 153410 STE 10 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)

Data table· 6 rows

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
A0587/26TEY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	12 August 2026	Application Withdrawn Withdrawn
A0721/25TEY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	22 September 2025	Closed Approved
A0925/23TEY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	26 October 2023	Closed Approved
22 133939 STE 10 SA Development application	Site Plan Approval (SA)	13 April 2022	NOAC Issued Approved
21 233472 STE 10 CD Development application	Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)	3 November 2021	Under Review In progress
20 153410 STE 10 OZ Development application	Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)	8 June 2020	Closed 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

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 10

20 lobbied · 261 matched

Median days

Lobbied136
Matched, unlobbied138

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=20
Matched, unlobbied93% n=214

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied7%

Appeal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied5%

Objection rate

Lobbied14%
Matched, unlobbied18%

Minor variance (MV), City-wide

173 lobbied · 3,646 matched

Median days

Lobbied126
Matched, unlobbied114

Approval rate

Lobbied75% n=154
Matched, unlobbied91% n=3,058

Refusal rate

Lobbied25%
Matched, unlobbied9%

Appeal rate

Lobbied19%
Matched, unlobbied4%

Objection rate

Lobbied43%
Matched, unlobbied27%

Data table· 4 rows

Minor variance (MV), Ward 10: 20 lobbied and 261 matched unlobbied applications in 8 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	20	136	100% (n=20)	0%	0%	14%
Matched, unlobbied	261	138	93% (n=214)	7%	5%	18%

Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
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

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 10

66 lobbied · 165 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied1,881

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=5
Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied3%
Matched, unlobbied2%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=61
Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Data table· 4 rows

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	66	—	100% (n=5)	0%	3%	0.05
Matched, unlobbied	165	1,881	100% (n=11)	0%	2%	0.04

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	449	—	100% (n=61)	0%	4%	0.07
Matched, unlobbied	1,237	727	97% (n=96)	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.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.

Development applications

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 10

4 lobbied · 25 matched

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

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide

28 lobbied · 95 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=3
Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Data table· 4 rows

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 10: 4 lobbied and 25 matched unlobbied applications in 4 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	4	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	25	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide: 28 lobbied and 95 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
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.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.

Development applications

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 10

88 lobbied · 94 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=7
Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied11%
Matched, unlobbied5%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

Lobbied1,925
Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=64
Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

Lobbied13%
Matched, unlobbied13%

Data table· 4 rows

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 10: 88 lobbied and 94 matched unlobbied applications in 38 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	88	—	100% (n=7)	0%	11%	0.03
Matched, unlobbied	94	—	100% (n=6)	0%	5%	0.01

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	573	1,925	100% (n=64)	0%	13%	0.08
Matched, unlobbied	763	1,793	98% (n=70)	2%	13%	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.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.