259 Geary Ave

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 1; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 16; 1 offices contacted
Applications at this address: 3; No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items: 0; Items naming this address

About this address

Ward: Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Location: 43.66906, -79.44079
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

TASSM27462 · 29 January 201916

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Economic Development & Culture16

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Economic Development & Culture	City staff	16	16	20 October 2020

All registrations· 1 row

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM27462	TAS	259 Geary Avenue	Planning and Development, Combined Application	29 January 2019 – 31 December 2023	16

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 25 September 2026Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 26 244607 STE 09 SAUnder Review · In progress
Submitted 5 September 2025Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0690/25TEYClosed · Approved
Submitted 18 November 2024Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 24 240290 STE 09 SANOAC Issued · Approved

Data table· 3 rows

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
26 244607 STE 09 SA Development application	Site Plan Approval (SA)	25 September 2026	Under Review In progress
A0690/25TEY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	5 September 2025	Closed Approved
24 240290 STE 09 SA Development application	Site Plan Approval (SA)	18 November 2024	NOAC Issued Approved

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 9

20 lobbied · 21 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=4
Matched, unlobbied100% n=4

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=61
Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Data table· 4 rows

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 9: 20 lobbied and 21 matched unlobbied applications in 12 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	20	—	100% (n=4)	0%	0%	0.05
Matched, unlobbied	21	—	100% (n=4)	0%	0%	0.10

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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.

Committee of Adjustment applications

Minor variance (MV), Ward 9

27 lobbied · 333 matched

Median days

Lobbied169
Matched, unlobbied134

Approval rate

Lobbied67% n=27
Matched, unlobbied95% n=279

Refusal rate

Lobbied33%
Matched, unlobbied5%

Appeal rate

Lobbied26%
Matched, unlobbied6%

Objection rate

Lobbied29%
Matched, unlobbied30%

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 9: 27 lobbied and 333 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	27	169	67% (n=27)	33%	26%	29%
Matched, unlobbied	333	134	95% (n=279)	5%	6%	30%

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.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.