Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
219 Queen Street West
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.65043, -79.38779
- How this address was located
- Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 217 QUEEN ST W (2 civic numbers away).
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· 4 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 11 | 5 | 18 August 2017 |
| Mayor John Tory | Councillor staff | 7 | 0 | 7 July 2017 |
| Office of Councillor Cressy | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 9 June 2017 |
| Office of Councillor Cressy, Ward 20 | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 18 August 2017 |
All registrations· 4 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM24020 | Malibu Investments Inc. | 219 Queen Street West | Building Permits; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 8 February 2017 – 3 November 2017 | 10 |
| SM20325 | Queen Simcoe Inc. | 219 Queen Street West | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 15 April 2014 – 22 October 2018 | 2 |
| SM14068 | The Camrost Corporation | 219 Queen Street West | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 29 January 2010 – 30 January 2014 | 9 |
| SM12267 | City Core Centre Inc. | 219 Queen Street West | Planning and Development Applications, Site Plans | 1 September 2008 – 1 September 2009 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
6- Submitted 17 March 2025Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0204/25TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 25 June 2018Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 18 184238 STE 20 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 18 December 2017Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 17 276652 STE 20 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 30 May 2017Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0621/17TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 21 March 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 131885 STE 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 13 July 2011Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 11 237631 STE 20 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 6 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0204/25TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 17 March 2025 | Closed Approved |
| 18 184238 STE 20 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 25 June 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 17 276652 STE 20 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 18 December 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0621/17TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 30 May 2017 | Closed Approved |
| 14 131885 STE 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 21 March 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 237631 STE 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 13 July 2011 | 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
219 Queen St W · Site Plan Approval (SA)
14 131885 STE 20 SA · submitted 21 March 2014 · Closed · from registration SM14068 (The Camrost Corporation)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.71
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 SM14068: 219 Queen Street West (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 131885 STE 20 SA at 219 Queen St W: Proposed 25 storey mixed use building comprised of a 4 storey commercial podium and a 21 storey residential tower with 4 storeys of below grade parking. The residential portion of will be comprised of 256 dwelling units. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 219 Queen Street West
Matched fields
- address
- 219 QUEEN ST W
- application_address
- 219 QUEEN ST W
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 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Minor variance (MV), City-wide
173 lobbied · 3,646 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 4 rows
| 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% |
| 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
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), Ward 10
4 lobbied · 25 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| 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. | ||||
| 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 10
66 lobbied · 165 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| 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 |
| 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.
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 10
88 lobbied · 94 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| 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 |
| 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.
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.