Address
26 Ernest Ave
About this address
- Ward
- — (address points for this address fall in more than one ward)
- Location
- 43.65935, -79.45152
- 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· 3 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 18 Davenport | Member of council | 22 | 20 | 20 November 2017 |
| Councillor Bailao | Councillor staff | 13 | 3 | 27 November 2019 |
| Legal Services | City staff | 1 | 1 | 17 October 2017 |
All registrations· 5 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM25266 | Neudorfer Development Corporation | 26 Ernest Ave | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 6 November 2017 – 23 March 2018 | 4 |
| SM25174 | Neudorfer Development Corporation | 26 Ernest Ave | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 17 October 2017 – 20 April 2025 | 13 |
| SM20142 | Montevallo Developments Limited | 26 Ernest Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 3 March 2014 – 31 December 2014 | 0 |
| SM20143 | Montevallo Development Corporation | 26 Ernest Avenue. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 3 March 2014 – 30 August 2021 | 18 |
| SM19636 | Montevallo Developments Limited | 26 Ernest Ave. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 4 September 2013 – 31 December 2014 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
5- Submitted 26 June 2019Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 19 178777 STE 09 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 26 June 2019Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 19 178810 STE 09 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 26 June 2019Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 19 178830 STE 09 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 5 June 2014Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 14 169077 STE 18 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 5 June 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 169082 STE 18 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19 178777 STE 09 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 26 June 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 19 178810 STE 09 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 26 June 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 19 178830 STE 09 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 26 June 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 169077 STE 18 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 5 June 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 169082 STE 18 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 5 June 2014 | 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
26 Ernest Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
14 169077 STE 18 OZ · submitted 5 June 2014 · Closed · from registration SM19636 (Montevallo Developments Limited)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.84
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 SM19636: Re-zoning for 26 Ernest Ave. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 169077 STE 18 OZ at 26 Ernest Ave: To rezone the subject property to allow for the constructing of a three-storey 79 unit townhouse development containing 100 parking spaces of which 92 parking spaces are for residents and 8 parking spaces are for visitors. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Re-zoning for 26 Ernest Ave.
Matched fields
- address
- 26 ERNEST AVE
- application_address
- 26 ERNEST AVE
26 Ernest Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
14 169077 STE 18 OZ · submitted 5 June 2014 · Closed · from registration SM20142 (Montevallo Developments Limited)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.75
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 SM20142: the redevelopment of 26 Ernest Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 169077 STE 18 OZ at 26 Ernest Ave: To rezone the subject property to allow for the constructing of a three-storey 79 unit townhouse development containing 100 parking spaces of which 92 parking spaces are for residents and 8 parking spaces are for visitors. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: the redevelopment of 26 Ernest Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 26 ERNEST AVE
- application_address
- 26 ERNEST AVE
26 Ernest Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
14 169077 STE 18 OZ · submitted 5 June 2014 · Closed · from registration SM20143 (Montevallo Development Corporation)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.88
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 SM20143: Re-development of 26 Ernest Avenue. Condominium registration. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 169077 STE 18 OZ at 26 Ernest Ave: To rezone the subject property to allow for the constructing of a three-storey 79 unit townhouse development containing 100 parking spaces of which 92 parking spaces are for residents and 8 parking spaces are for visitors. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Re-development of 26 Ernest Avenue. Condominium registration.
Matched fields
- address
- 26 ERNEST AVE
- application_address
- 26 ERNEST AVE
26 Ernest Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
14 169082 STE 18 SA · submitted 5 June 2014 · Closed · from registration SM20142 (Montevallo Developments Limited)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.76
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 SM20142: the redevelopment of 26 Ernest Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 169082 STE 18 SA at 26 Ernest Ave: Site Plan Control application for three blocks of three-storey townhouses with a total of 79 dwelling units. 92 parking spaces for residents will be provided in one level of underground garage that is accessed via the existing underground garage on the property to the north known as 351 Wallace Ave… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: the redevelopment of 26 Ernest Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 26 ERNEST AVE
- application_address
- 26 ERNEST AVE
26 Ernest Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
14 169082 STE 18 SA · submitted 5 June 2014 · Closed · from registration SM20143 (Montevallo Development Corporation)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.91
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM20143: Re-development of 26 Ernest Avenue. Condominium registration. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 169082 STE 18 SA at 26 Ernest Ave: Site Plan Control application for three blocks of three-storey townhouses with a total of 79 dwelling units. 92 parking spaces for residents will be provided in one level of underground garage that is accessed via the existing underground garage on the property to the north known as 351 Wallace Ave… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Re-development of 26 Ernest Avenue. Condominium registration.
Matched fields
- address
- 26 ERNEST AVE
- application_address
- 26 ERNEST AVE
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.
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL), City-wide
2 lobbied · 6 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 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 | 6 | 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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 9
2 lobbied · 4 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 4 | 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 | 28 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 0% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 95 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.03 |
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 9
19 lobbied · 28 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 19 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 28 | 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 | 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 9
20 lobbied · 21 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 | 20 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 21 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 0% | 0.10 |
| 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.