Address · Ward 13 · Chris Moise
25 St Mary St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 13 · Chris Moise
- Location
- 43.66733, -79.38715
- 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
10These 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
Top 8Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
Data table· 25 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chris Moise | Councillor staff | 112 | 38 | 26 January 2026 |
| Kristyn Wong-Tam | Councillor staff | 20 | 1 | 3 May 2022 |
| Ward 13 Toronto Centre | Member of council | 10 | 6 | 22 October 2021 |
| Chris Moise | Member of council | 10 | 4 | 14 September 2023 |
| Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam | Councillor staff | 5 | 2 | 11 April 2022 |
| Josh Matlow | Councillor staff | 5 | 3 | 17 April 2024 |
| Dianne Saxe | Member of council | 4 | 0 | 21 April 2023 |
| Gord Perks | Member of council | 4 | 1 | 3 September 2024 |
| Bloor-Yorkville BIA | Local board | 3 | 0 | 13 April 2022 |
| Brad Bradford | Councillor staff | 3 | 1 | 17 April 2024 |
| Brad Bradford | Member of council | 3 | 0 | 16 April 2024 |
| Environment & Climate | City staff | 2 | 0 | 10 May 2023 |
| Environment and Climate | City staff | 2 | 2 | 12 July 2024 |
| Ward 13 Office | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 6 May 2022 |
| Dianne Saxe | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 31 March 2023 |
| Gord Perks | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 3 September 2024 |
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 15 March 2023 |
| Robin Buxton-Potts | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 4 November 2022 |
| Alejandra Bravo | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 3 March 2023 |
| Ausma Malik | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 7 March 2023 |
| Ausma Malik | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 7 March 2023 |
| Josh Matlow | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 3 March 2023 |
| Olivia Chow | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 16 April 2024 |
| Paula Fletcher | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 3 March 2023 |
| Paula Fletcher | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 3 March 2023 |
All registrations· 10 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM36415 | Tenblock Management LP | 25 St. Mary Street | Planning and Development; Combined Application | 4 March 2025 – 17 February 2026 | 5 |
| SM35533 | Tenblock Developments | 25 St Mary St | Environment; Parks / Open Space; Planning and Development | 23 April 2024 – 31 December 2024 | 5 |
| SM35508 | 25 St. Mary Developments Inc. | 25 St. Mary Street | Planning and Development; Rental Housing Demolition or Conversion | 16 April 2024 – 21 August 2024 | 11 |
| SM34322 | 25 St. Mary Developments Inc. | 25 St. Mary Street | Planning and Development, Rental Housing Demolition or Conversion; Planning and Development Applica… | 16 March 2023 – 21 July 2023 | 51 |
| SM31706 | 25 St. Mary Developments Inc. | 25 St. Mary Street | Planning and Development; Combined Application | 18 May 2021 – 19 January 2022 | 1 |
| SM31718 | Claude Cormier + Associés inc. | 25 St. Mary Street | Planning and Development; Combined Application | 18 May 2021 – 31 December 2021 | 0 |
| SM31719 | 25 St. Mary Developments Inc. | 25 St. Mary Street | Planning and Development; Combined Application | 18 May 2021 – 30 April 2022 | 1 |
| SM31651 | 25 St. Mary Developments Inc. | 25 St. Mary Street | Planning and Development; Planning and Development, Combined Application | 17 May 2021 – 17 May 2022 | 1 |
| SM31586 | 25 St. Mary Developments Inc. | 25 St. Mary Street | Planning and Development, Rental Housing Demolition or Conversion; Planning and Development Applica… | 21 April 2021 – 15 March 2023 | 71 |
| SM30765 | Tenblock | 25 St. Mary Street | Planning and Development; Combined Application | 29 October 2020 – 31 December 2024 | 52 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 20 January 2026Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0053/26TEYApplication Withdrawn · Withdrawn
- Submitted 3 October 2021Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 21 221001 STE 13 SBUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 7 June 2021Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 21 166606 STE 13 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 7 June 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 166615 STE 13 SAUnder Review · In progress
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0053/26TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 20 January 2026 | Application Withdrawn Withdrawn |
| 21 221001 STE 13 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 3 October 2021 | Under Review In progress |
| 21 166606 STE 13 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 7 June 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 21 166615 STE 13 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 7 June 2021 | Under Review In progress |
Linked lobbying registrations
No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.
Council and committee items naming this address
- 25 St. Mary Street - Official Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, and Rental Housing Demolition Applications - Decision Report - Approval2023.TE4.13 · 12 April 2023
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 13
5 lobbied · 76 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 | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 76 | 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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 13
2 lobbied · 8 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 8 | 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 | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | Hidden: 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.
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 13
82 lobbied · 96 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 | 82 | — | 100% (n=13) | 0% | 11% | 0.15 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 96 | — | 90% (n=14) | 10% | 16% | 0.08 |
| 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.
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 13
56 lobbied · 128 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 | 56 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 7% | 0.16 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 128 | — | 100% (n=8) | 0% | 2% | 0.01 |
| 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.