Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe

230 Augusta Ave

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

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

About this address

Ward: Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Location: 43.65506, -79.40250
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

Eative IncorporatedSM23483 · 30 August 20160

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

No communications recorded.

All registrations· 1 row

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM23483	Eative Incorporated	230 Augusta Avenue.	Licences / Licensing	30 August 2016 – 4 November 2016	0

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 30 June 2025Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0508/25TEYPostponed · In progress
Submitted 26 February 2025Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-5588493Cancelled · Withdrawn
Submitted 10 December 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-5554400Cancelled · Withdrawn

Data table· 3 rows

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
A0508/25TEY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	30 June 2025	Postponed In progress
COA-5588493 Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	26 February 2025	Cancelled Withdrawn
COA-5554400 Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	10 December 2024	Cancelled Withdrawn

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 11

16 lobbied · 354 matched

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

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 11: 16 lobbied and 354 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	16	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	354	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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.