Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
316 Dupont St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Location
- 43.67468, -79.40868
- 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
3These 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dianne Saxe | Councillor staff | 4 | 0 | 26 February 2026 |
| Ward 11 University-Rosedale | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 23 November 2020 |
| Dianne Saxe | Member of council | 2 | 1 | 23 March 2026 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM37440 | Freed (Anx) Ltd. | 316 Dupont Street | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study; Planning and Development Application; Planning a… | 26 February 2026 – 31 August 2027 | 2 |
| SM34877 | Freed (Anx) Ltd. | 316 Dupont Street | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study; Planning and Development Application | 4 October 2023 – 30 June 2025 | 4 |
| SM28200 | FREED Developments | 316 Dupont Street. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 15 May 2019 – 26 November 2021 | 2 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 4 July 2025Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0048/25TEYConditional Consent · Approved
- Submitted 4 September 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 215867 STE 11 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 20 December 2018Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 18 270843 STE 11 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 31 May 2010Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 10 184959 STE 20 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| B0048/25TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 4 July 2025 | Conditional Consent Approved |
| 19 215867 STE 11 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 4 September 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 270843 STE 11 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 20 December 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 10 184959 STE 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 31 May 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
320 Dupont St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
18 270843 STE 11 OZ · submitted 20 December 2018 · Closed · from registration SM28200 (FREED Developments)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.94
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 SM28200: Community Engagement services in support of ZBA application re redevelopment of 316 Dupont Street. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 270843 STE 11 OZ at 320 Dupont St: Zoning By-law Amendments to facilitate redevelopment of the subject site for a 9-storey non-residential building: 822 square metres of commercial / retail space located at grade and on the 2nd level, and office use, approximately 2 ,115 square metres. The building would have a total gross floor are… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Community Engagement services in support of ZBA application re redevelopment of 316 Dupont Street.
Matched fields
- address
- 316 DUPONT ST
- application_address
- 316 DUPONT ST
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), Ward 11
3 lobbied · 25 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 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 | 25 | 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 | 26 | 184 | 79% (n=24) | 21% | 15% | 25% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 179 | 115 | 88% (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 11
46 lobbied · 113 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 46 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 9% | 0.09 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 113 | 1,629 | 100% (n=12) | 0% | 2% | 0.02 |
| 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.
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 11
69 lobbied · 60 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 69 | — | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 11% | 0.03 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (n=70) | 2% | 13% | 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.