Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
29 Queens Quay E
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.64126, -79.37286
- 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
1These 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· 4 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pam McConnell | Councillor staff | 6 | 4 | 6 January 2012 |
| Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 5 | 4 | 15 June 2011 |
| Office of Councillor McConnell, Ward 28 | Councillor staff | 3 | 1 | 12 April 2011 |
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 4 April 2011 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM14099 | Pier 27 Toronto (North) Inc. | 29 Queens Quay East. | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 3 February 2010 – 25 August 2026 | 15 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 4 February 2020Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 20 112090 STE 10 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 7 April 2010Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 10 147097 STE 28 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 112090 STE 10 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 4 February 2020 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 10 147097 STE 28 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 7 April 2010 | 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
25 Queens Quay E · Site Plan Approval (SA)
10 147097 STE 28 SA · submitted 7 April 2010 · Closed · from registration SM14099 (Pier 27 Toronto (North) Inc.)
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 SM14099: Site Plan, Zoning By-law and Official Plan amendment applications for new mixed use condominium buildings (Phase 2). Ongoing site plan application for Phase 1. Former address is 25 Queens Quay East, now numbered as 15, 29 and 29 Queens Quay East. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 10 147097 STE 28 SA at 25 Queens Quay E: Site Plan Approval Application for Pier 27 Phase 2: proposal for 3 new mixed use building containing retail at grade and 607 residentail units in 3 buildings comprising two 13-storey buildings and one 35-storey building. Gross Floor Area is 63,234 sq. m including 2,100 sq. m of retail space and a 5… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: …cations for new mixed use condominium buildings (Phase 2). Ongoing site plan application for Phase 1. Former address is 25 Queens Quay East, now numbered as 15, 29 and 29 Queens Quay East.
Matched fields
- address
- 25 QUEENS QUAY E
- application_address
- 25 QUEENS QUAY E
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 10
66 lobbied · 165 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 | 66 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 3% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 165 | — | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| 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.