Address · Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
22 St Clair Ave E
- Communications on those registrations
- 0
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Location
- 43.68852, -79.39301
- 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
1These 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
No communications recorded.
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM35459 | Choice Properties | 22 ST. CLAIR AVE E | Planning and Development Application | 1 April 2024 – 31 December 2026 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 16 June 2026Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 26 185667 STE 12 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 3 April 2019Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 19 134851 STE 12 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
- Submitted 10 July 2017Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0772/17TEYClosed · Approved
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26 185667 STE 12 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 16 June 2026 | Under Review In progress |
| 19 134851 STE 12 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 3 April 2019 | OMB Appeal In progress |
| A0772/17TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 10 July 2017 | Closed Approved |
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
1 Heath St E · Site Plan Approval (SA)
26 185667 STE 12 SA · submitted 16 June 2026 · Under Review · from registration SM35459 (Choice Properties)
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 SM35459: Mixed use redevelopment application for 1481-1535 YONGE ST, 1-31 HEATH ST EAST, 30-36 ALVINE AVE, 22 ST. CLAIR AVE E (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 26 185667 STE 12 SA at 1 Heath St E: Mixed use development consisting of three towers organized around a central publicly accessible open space (POPS), along with a new 1,560 m² public park at the northwest corner of the site. The development would include 661 residential units, approximately 15,627 m² of retail, restaurant, wellness … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Mixed use redevelopment application for 1481-1535 YONGE ST, 1-31 HEATH ST EAST, 30-36 ALVINE AVE, 22 ST. CLAIR AVE E
- particulars: Mixed use redevelopment application for 1481-1535 YONGE ST, 1-31 HEATH ST EAST, 30-36 ALVINE AVE, 22 ST. CLAIR AVE E
Matched fields
- address
- 1-31 HEATH ST E
- application_address
- 1 HEATH ST E
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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 12
32 lobbied · 72 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 32 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 3% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| 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.
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 12
44 lobbied · 60 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 44 | — | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 14% | 0.02 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| 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.
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 12
20 lobbied · 357 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 | 106 | 50% (n=12) | 50% | 35% | 86% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 357 | 145 | 90% (n=291) | 10% | 5% | 30% |
| 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.