32 Lisgar St

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 1; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 12; 3 offices contacted
Applications at this address: 1; No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items: 0; Items naming this address

About this address

Ward: Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Location: 43.64159, -79.42312
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

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

Toronto Media Arts ClusterSM26527 · 23 July 201812

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Legal Services, City Solicitor9
City of Toronto Legal Services2
Ward 18 Davenport1

Data table· 3 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Legal Services, City Solicitor	City staff	9	0	14 September 2018
City of Toronto Legal Services	City staff	2	0	29 August 2018
Ward 18 Davenport	Member of council	1	1	5 September 2018

All registrations· 1 row

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM26527	Toronto Media Arts Cluster	32 Lisgar Street	Licences / Licensing	23 July 2018 – 16 October 2018	12

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 24 May 2018Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0053/18TEYClosed · Approved

Data table· 1 row

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
B0053/18TEY Committee of Adjustment application	Consent (severance) (CO)	24 May 2018	Closed Approved

Linked lobbying registrations

No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.

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 9

2 lobbied · 7 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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· 4 rows

Consent (severance) (CO), Ward 9: 2 lobbied and 7 matched unlobbied applications in 1 matched stratum
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	2	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	7	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide: 26 lobbied and 179 matched unlobbied applications in 21 matched strata
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.