Address · Ward 3 · Amber Morley
25 Mabelle Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Location
- 43.64558, -79.52650
- 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
5These 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· 7 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Councillor Di Ciano | Councillor staff | 6 | 1 | 11 July 2018 |
| Councillor Mark Grimes | Councillor staff | 4 | 1 | 2 March 2020 |
| Mark Grimes | Councillor staff | 4 | 1 | 17 June 2022 |
| Councillor Grimes | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 23 September 2019 |
| Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 2 | 1 | 2 March 2020 |
| Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 2 | 1 | 10 May 2018 |
| Councillor Grimes - Ward 3, Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 23 September 2019 |
All registrations· 5 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM33370 | Tribute Communities | 25 Mabelle Avenue | Planning and Development Application | 17 June 2022 – 31 December 2022 | 1 |
| SM28950 | North Edge Properties Ltd. | 25 Mabelle Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 2 October 2019 – 2 October 2020 | 1 |
| SM27329 | North Edge Property Management | 25 Mabelle Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 10 January 2019 – 24 April 2019 | 3 |
| SM25533 | North Edge Properties Ltd. | 25 Mabelle Avenue. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 15 January 2018 – 23 March 2018 | 2 |
| SM25534 | North Edge Property Management | 25 Mabelle Avenue. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 15 January 2018 – 2 September 2021 | 14 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
6- Submitted 12 August 2026Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0261/26EYKApproved · Approved
- Submitted 18 March 2024Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0016/24EYKApproved with Conditions · Approved
- Submitted 13 November 2023Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0047/23EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 21 September 2022Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 22 206826 WET 03 SAOMB Appeal · In progress
- Submitted 2 February 2022Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0011/22EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 20 December 2018Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 18 270817 WET 03 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 6 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0261/26EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 12 August 2026 | Approved Approved |
| B0016/24EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 18 March 2024 | Approved with Conditions Approved |
| B0047/23EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 13 November 2023 | Closed Approved |
| 22 206826 WET 03 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 21 September 2022 | OMB Appeal In progress |
| B0011/22EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 2 February 2022 | Closed Approved |
| 18 270817 WET 03 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 20 December 2018 | 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
25 Mabelle Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
22 206826 WET 03 SA · submitted 21 September 2022 · OMB Appeal · from registration SM33370 (Tribute Communities)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.91
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM33370: 25 Mabelle Avenue - Zoning Bylaw Amendment and Site Plan Approval (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 22 206826 WET 03 SA at 25 Mabelle Ave: Proposal to redevelop the site with a 49 storey mixed use building containing 79 square metres of retail gross floor area, 580 residential condominium units and 5 levels of below grade parking. The new building is proposed to be constructed to the west of the existing residential building at 25 Mab… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 25 Mabelle Avenue - Zoning Bylaw Amendment and Site Plan Approval
Matched fields
- address
- 25 MABELLE AVE
- application_address
- 25 MABELLE AVE
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 3
4 lobbied · 265 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 | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 265 | 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.
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), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 26 | 184 | 79% (n=24) | 21% | 15% | 25% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 179 | 115 | 88% (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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 3
24 lobbied · 100 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 | 24 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 4% | 0.25 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 100 | — | 71% (n=10) | 29% | 4% | 0.14 |
| 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 3
37 lobbied · 72 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 | 37 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 16% | 0.27 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 15% | 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.