lobbyTO

Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik

308 Queen St W

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page
Registrations naming this address
2
2 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
3
1 offices contacted
Applications at this address
2
2 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Location
43.64964, -79.39393
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

2

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

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

  • Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina3
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 20 Trinity-SpadinaMember of council3016 November 2016
All registrations· 2 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM21525Mountain Equipment Co-operative308 Queen St W.Planning and Development Application, Site Plan6 March 2015 – 11 March 20203
SM214942206181 Ontario Inc.308 Queen Street WestPlanning and Development Application, Site Plan2 March 2015 – 28 May 20150

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

2
Data table· 2 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
B0074/16TEY
Committee of Adjustment application
Consent (severance) (CO)4 November 2016Closed
Approved
15 173242 STE 20 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)12 June 2015Closed
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

Council and committee items naming this address

None.

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.

Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide

26 lobbied · 179 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied184
  • Matched, unlobbied115

Approval rate

  • Lobbied79% n=24
  • Matched, unlobbied88% n=133

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied21%
  • Matched, unlobbied12%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied15%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Objection rate

  • Lobbied25%
  • Matched, unlobbied25%
Data table· 2 rows
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide: 26 lobbied and 179 matched unlobbied applications in 21 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied2618479% (n=24)21%15%25%
Matched, unlobbied17911588% (n=133)12%3%25%

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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 10

66 lobbied · 165 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied1,881

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied3%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

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 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied66—100% (n=5)0%3%0.05
Matched, unlobbied1651,881100% (n=11)0%2%0.04
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (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.