lobbyTO

Address · Ward 1 · Vincent Crisanti

2200 Islington Ave

Registrations naming this address
5
3 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
40
21 offices contacted
Applications at this address
5
3 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 1 · Vincent Crisanti
Location
43.71075, -79.55794
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

5

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

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

  • Ward 2 Etobicoke North7
  • Vincent Crisanti4
  • Mayor3
  • Ward 12 York South-Weston3
  • Office of Councillor Crisanti, Ward 12
  • Ward 1 Etobicoke North2
  • Ward 11 York South-Weston2
  • Ward 13 Parkdale-High Park2
Data table· 21 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 2 Etobicoke NorthMember of council7517 July 2018
Vincent CrisantiMember of council4112 March 2024
MayorCouncillor staff3013 April 2022
Ward 12 York South-WestonMember of council3222 May 2018
Office of Councillor Crisanti, Ward 1Councillor staff229 April 2018
Ward 1 Etobicoke NorthMember of council229 April 2018
Ward 11 York South-WestonMember of council2218 April 2018
Ward 13 Parkdale-High ParkMember of council2030 April 2018
Ward 17 DavenportMember of council2218 April 2018
Ward 3 Etobicoke CentreMember of council2223 March 2018
City LegalCity staff106 April 2022
Corporate ServicesCity staff103 March 2021
Councillor Di Giorgio, Ward 12Councillor staff1119 April 2018
Councillor FordCouncillor staff1015 April 2021
Councillor Ford, Ward 2Councillor staff1118 April 2018
Office of Councillor Di Giorgio, Ward 12Councillor staff1119 April 2018
Office of Councillor Doucette, Ward 13Councillor staff1030 April 2018
Create TOLocal board103 March 2021
Ward 4 Etobicoke CentreMember of council1121 March 2018
Brad BradfordMember of council1111 December 2024
Olivia ChowMember of council1013 July 2023
All registrations· 5 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM29965Rice Group2200 Islington AvenuePlanning and Development, Combined Application; Real Estate / Property (City-owned)14 April 2020 – 17 July 20237
SM25839Rice Commercial Group Limited2200 Islington AvenueBuilding Permits; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law12 March 2018 – 19 August 20207
SM25765Rice Commercial Group Limited2200 Islington AvenueBuilding Permits; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law6 March 2018 – 31 December 20185
SM23409Rice Commercial Group Limited2200 Islington Ave.Building Permits; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development App…5 August 2016 – 31 July 202718
SM18963CR Islington Inc2200 Islington Avenue.Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law27 February 2013 – 17 November 20163

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

5
Data table· 5 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
B0049/23EYK
Committee of Adjustment application
Consent (severance) (CO)15 November 2023Closed
Approved
20 206369 WET 01 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)14 October 2020Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
19 255712 WET 01 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)29 November 2019Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
17 207652 WET 02 SB
Development application
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)28 July 2017Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
13 277902 WET 02 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)13 December 2013Closed
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

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.

Consent (severance) (CO), Ward 1

2 lobbied · 7 matched

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

Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide

26 lobbied · 179 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied184
  • Matched, unlobbied115

Approval rate

  • Lobbied79% n=24
  • Matched, unlobbied88% n=133

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied21%
  • Matched, unlobbied12%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied15%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Objection rate

  • Lobbied25%
  • Matched, unlobbied25%
Data table· 4 rows
Consent (severance) (CO), Ward 1: 2 lobbied and 7 matched unlobbied applications in 2 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied2Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied7Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide: 26 lobbied and 179 matched unlobbied applications in 21 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied2618479% (n=24)21%15%25%
Matched, unlobbied17911588% (n=133)12%3%25%

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.

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· 2 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5731,925100% (n=64)0%13%0.08
Matched, unlobbied7631,79398% (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.

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 1

4 lobbied · 12 matched

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

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 1: 4 lobbied and 12 matched unlobbied applications in 3 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied4Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied12Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (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.

Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide

16 lobbied · 48 matched

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

Data table· 2 rows
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide: 16 lobbied and 48 matched unlobbied applications in 15 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied16Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied48Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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.