Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
250 Davenport Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Location
- 43.67480, -79.39822
- 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· 10 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Councillor Joe Cressy, Ward 20 | Councillor staff | 18 | 0 | 6 September 2018 |
| Councillor Mike Layton Office | Councillor staff | 11 | 2 | 10 January 2020 |
| Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 9 | 9 | 9 April 2018 |
| Executive Assistant Ward 20 Councillor Cressy | Councillor staff | 3 | 0 | 26 September 2018 |
| Councilloer Joe Cressy | Councillor staff | 2 | 1 | 21 March 2017 |
| Councillor Cressy | Councillor staff | 2 | 1 | 9 April 2018 |
| Councillor Mike Layton | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 24 January 2020 |
| Ward 11 University-Rosedale | Member of council | 2 | 1 | 29 January 2019 |
| Councillor Joe Cressy Office | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 4 July 2018 |
| Ward 18 Davenport | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 10 November 2015 |
All registrations· 5 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM24224 | Diamondcorp | 250 Davenport Road | Planning and Development, Rental Housing Demolition or Conversion; Planning and Development, Combin… | 22 March 2017 – 20 July 2026 | 40 |
| SM23945 | Whitecastle New Urban Fund 1 | 250 Davenport Road | Planning and Development, Rental Housing Demolition or Conversion | 23 January 2017 – 7 May 2017 | 3 |
| SM22279 | Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2 | 250 Davenport Road | Planning and Development, Rental Housing Demolition or Conversion; Planning and Development Applica… | 1 October 2015 – 7 May 2017 | 5 |
| SM19668 | Whitecastle New Urban Fund | 250 Davenport Road | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 18 September 2013 – 22 March 2017 | 2 |
| SM19621 | Whitecastle New Urban Fund | 250 Davenport Road | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 29 August 2013 – 30 August 2016 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
6- Submitted 20 August 2026Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0644/26TEYPostponed · In progress
- Submitted 14 February 2019Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0009/19TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 29 December 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 271502 STE 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 29 December 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 271518 STE 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 1 December 2016Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0083/16TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 16 July 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 192161 STE 20 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 6 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0644/26TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 20 August 2026 | Postponed In progress |
| B0009/19TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 14 February 2019 | Closed Approved |
| 16 271502 STE 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 29 December 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 271518 STE 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 29 December 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| B0083/16TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 1 December 2016 | Closed Approved |
| 15 192161 STE 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 16 July 2015 | 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
250 Davenport Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
15 192161 STE 20 OZ · submitted 16 July 2015 · Closed · from registration SM19621 (Whitecastle New Urban Fund)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.78
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 SM19621: Proposed residential redevelopment of a portion of the property municipally known as 250 Davenport Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 192161 STE 20 OZ at 250 Davenport Rd: Proposal for rezoning related to a new 28 storey residential condominium with six integrated townhouses as well as two back to back townhouse blocks at grade with 3 levels of underground parking, total of 354 residential units (315 in condo tower), on the Easterly portion of the lot- the 25 storey … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposed residential redevelopment of a portion of the property municipally known as 250 Davenport Road
Matched fields
- address
- 250 DAVENPORT RD
- application_address
- 250 DAVENPORT RD
250 Davenport Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
15 192161 STE 20 OZ · submitted 16 July 2015 · Closed · from registration SM19668 (Whitecastle New Urban Fund)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.73
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 SM19668: Proposed residential redevelopment of a portion of the property municipally known as 250 Davenport Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 192161 STE 20 OZ at 250 Davenport Rd: Proposal for rezoning related to a new 28 storey residential condominium with six integrated townhouses as well as two back to back townhouse blocks at grade with 3 levels of underground parking, total of 354 residential units (315 in condo tower), on the Easterly portion of the lot- the 25 storey … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposed residential redevelopment of a portion of the property municipally known as 250 Davenport Road
Matched fields
- address
- 250 DAVENPORT RD
- application_address
- 250 DAVENPORT RD
250 Davenport Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
15 192161 STE 20 OZ · submitted 16 July 2015 · Closed · from registration SM22279 (Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.87
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 SM22279: 250 Davenport Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 192161 STE 20 OZ at 250 Davenport Rd: Proposal for rezoning related to a new 28 storey residential condominium with six integrated townhouses as well as two back to back townhouse blocks at grade with 3 levels of underground parking, total of 354 residential units (315 in condo tower), on the Easterly portion of the lot- the 25 storey … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 250 Davenport Road
Matched fields
- address
- 250 DAVENPORT RD
- application_address
- 250 DAVENPORT 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 11
16 lobbied · 354 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 | 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. | ||||
| 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), Ward 11
3 lobbied · 25 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 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 | 3 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 25 | 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 | 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 11
46 lobbied · 113 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 46 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 9% | 0.09 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 113 | 1,629 | 100% (n=12) | 0% | 2% | 0.02 |
| 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 11
69 lobbied · 60 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 69 | — | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 11% | 0.03 |
| 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.