Address · Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
2150 Lawrence Ave E
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
- Location
- 43.74781, -79.28640
- 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
0These 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.
None.
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
No communications recorded.
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
5- Submitted 16 September 2019Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 19 221957 ESC 21 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 25 February 2019Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 19 118744 ESC 21 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 10 December 2014Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 14 262518 ESC 37 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 31 July 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 200211 ESC 37 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 3 August 2011Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 11 250612 ESC 37 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19 221957 ESC 21 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 16 September 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 19 118744 ESC 21 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 25 February 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 262518 ESC 37 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 10 December 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 200211 ESC 37 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 31 July 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 250612 ESC 37 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 3 August 2011 | 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
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), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 2 rows
| 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 21
10 lobbied · 44 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 | 10 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 44 | 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.