Address · Ward 6 · James Pasternak
25 Fisherville Rd
- Communications on those registrations
- 0
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 6 · James Pasternak
- Location
- 43.78887, -79.44898
- 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
2These 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· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM35314 | Starlight Investments | 25 Fisherville Road. | Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Develop… | 13 February 2024 – 31 December 2026 | 0 |
| SM30210 | Starlight Investments | 25 Fisherville Road | Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 15 June 2020 – 31 December 2022 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 29 September 2026Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0342/26NYAccepted · In progress
- Submitted 29 September 2026Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-5927784In Progress · In progress
- Submitted 30 October 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 243233 NNY 06 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 6 July 2018Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 18 189969 NNY 10 OZOMB Approved · Approved
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0342/26NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 29 September 2026 | Accepted In progress |
| COA-5927784 Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 29 September 2026 | In Progress In progress |
| 19 243233 NNY 06 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 30 October 2019 | Under Review In progress |
| 18 189969 NNY 10 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 6 July 2018 | OMB Approved 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
25 Fisherville Rd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
19 243233 NNY 06 SA · submitted 30 October 2019 · Under Review · from registration SM30210 (Starlight Investments)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.72
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 SM30210: Proposed Development at 25 Fisherville Road, Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 19 243233 NNY 06 SA at 25 Fisherville Rd: Site Plan Application for the proposed development that comprises of 2 additional apartment buildings on the site, to be located north (21 storeys) and south (12 storeys) of the existing building (18 storeys). Two blocks of 3-storey townhouses are proposed along the western boundary of the site. Ne… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposed Development at 25 Fisherville Road, Toronto
Matched fields
- address
- 25 FISHERVILLE RD
- application_address
- 25 FISHERVILLE RD
25 Fisherville Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
18 189969 NNY 10 OZ · submitted 6 July 2018 · OMB Approved · from registration SM30210 (Starlight Investments)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.74
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 SM30210: Proposed Development at 25 Fisherville Road, Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 189969 NNY 10 OZ at 25 Fisherville Rd: The proposed development comprises of 2 additional apartment buildings on the site, to be located north (22 storeys) and south (12 storeys) of the existing building (18 storeys). Two blocks 3-storey townhouses are proposed along the western boundary of the site. New and reconfigured landscaped area… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposed Development at 25 Fisherville Road, Toronto
Matched fields
- address
- 25 FISHERVILLE RD
- application_address
- 25 FISHERVILLE RD
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 6
2 lobbied · 14 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 14 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 6
17 lobbied · 41 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 17 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 41 | 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=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 6
13 lobbied · 16 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 13 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 16 | 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 | 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.