Address · Ward 13 · Chris Moise
252 Parliament St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 13 · Chris Moise
- Location
- 43.65783, -79.36554
- 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
Data table· 3 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam | Councillor staff | 4 | 2 | 1 October 2020 |
| Kristyn Wong-Tam | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 27 January 2022 |
| Ward 13 Toronto Centre | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 21 July 2020 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM30266 | Core Development Group Ltd. | 252 Parliament Street | Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development, Combined … | 25 June 2020 – 31 December 2022 | 6 |
| SM25706 | Downing Street (187 Parliament St.) Inc. | 252 Parliament Street | Building Permits; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 1 March 2018 – 30 September 2019 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 15 March 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 127197 STE 13 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 1 September 2020Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 20 188489 STE 13 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 127197 STE 13 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 15 March 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 20 188489 STE 13 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 1 September 2020 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
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
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.
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.