Address · Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
3268 Finch Ave E
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
- Location
- 43.79639, -79.31892
- 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· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 39 Scarborough-Agincourt | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 22 June 2015 |
| Ward 40 Scarborough-Agincourt | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 22 June 2015 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM21955 | 2306986 Ontario Inc. | 3268 Finch Ave. East. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 16 June 2015 – 9 June 2018 | 2 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
8- Submitted 17 April 2026Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0053/26SCClosed · Approved
- Submitted 25 August 2025Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0192/25SCClosed · Approved
- Submitted 18 April 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0090/24SCApplication Withdrawn · Withdrawn
- Submitted 8 September 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0205/23SCClosed · Approved
- Submitted 13 February 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0036/23SCClosed · Approved
- Submitted 25 April 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 145567 ESC 22 SANOAC Issued · Approved
- Submitted 16 March 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 128441 ESC 39 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 3 June 2008Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 08 165201 ESC 39 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 8 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0053/26SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 17 April 2026 | Closed Approved |
| A0192/25SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 25 August 2025 | Closed Approved |
| A0090/24SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 18 April 2024 | Application Withdrawn Withdrawn |
| A0205/23SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 8 September 2023 | Closed Approved |
| A0036/23SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 13 February 2023 | Closed Approved |
| 21 145567 ESC 22 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 25 April 2021 | NOAC Issued Approved |
| 16 128441 ESC 39 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 16 March 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 08 165201 ESC 39 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 3 June 2008 | 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
3268 Finch Ave E · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
16 128441 ESC 39 OZ · submitted 16 March 2016 · Closed · from registration SM21955 (2306986 Ontario Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.76
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 SM21955: Mixed use development proposal at 3268 Finch Ave. East. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 128441 ESC 39 OZ at 3268 Finch Ave E: The applicant is proposing a 12-storey mixed use building with rooftop indoor amenity and at-grade day care uses. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Mixed use development proposal at 3268 Finch Ave. East.
Matched fields
- address
- 3268 FINCH AVE E
- application_address
- 3268 FINCH AVE E
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.
Minor variance (MV), Ward 22
1 lobbied · 4 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 | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 4 | 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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 22
7 lobbied · 14 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 7 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 14 | 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=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 22
6 lobbied · 10 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 6 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 10 | 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 | 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.