Address · Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
300 Borough Dr
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
- Location
- 43.77628, -79.25802
- 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· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michael Thompson | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 3 February 2025 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM30515 | OPGI Management GP Inc. | 300 Borough Drive | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Pla… | 1 September 2020 – 31 December 2026 | 2 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
6- Submitted 13 June 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0133/23SCClosed · Approved
- Submitted 21 December 2022Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 22 241465 ESC 21 OZUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 1 September 2021Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 21 206885 ESC 21 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 10 May 2018Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0161/18SCClosed · Approved
- Submitted 17 February 2010Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 10 119227 ESC 38 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 13 January 2009Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 09 102000 ESC 38 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 6 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0133/23SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 13 June 2023 | Closed Approved |
| 22 241465 ESC 21 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 21 December 2022 | Under Review In progress |
| 21 206885 ESC 21 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 1 September 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0161/18SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 10 May 2018 | Closed Approved |
| 10 119227 ESC 38 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 17 February 2010 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 09 102000 ESC 38 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 13 January 2009 | 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
- 300 Borough Drive, 1755 Brimley Road, 400 to 580 Progress Avenue and 350 Town Centre Court - Ontario Land Tribunal Hearing - Request for Directions2024.CC19.12 · 26 June 2024
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 21
3 lobbied · 48 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 | 3 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | 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.
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 21
15 lobbied · 21 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 | 15 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 21 | 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 21
10 lobbied · 44 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 10 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 44 | 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 | 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.