25 Tangiers Rd

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

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

About this address

Ward: Ward 6 · James Pasternak
Location: 43.76307, -79.48725
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

Lukofsky Holdings LimitedSM19111 · 21 March 20131

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Ward 8 York West1

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 8 York West	Member of council	1	1	21 March 2013

All registrations· 1 row

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM19111	Lukofsky Holdings Limited	25 Tangiers Road	Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study	21 March 2013 – 19 March 2014	1

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 31 March 2026Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0125/26NYTLAB Appeal · Refused

Data table· 1 row

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
A0125/26NY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	31 March 2026	TLAB Appeal Refused

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 6

2 lobbied · 14 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 6: 2 lobbied and 14 matched unlobbied applications in 2 matched strata
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.

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.