lobbyTO

Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe

33 Gerrard St W

Registrations naming this address
7
4 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
109
15 offices contacted
Applications at this address
3
3 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Location
43.65843, -79.38303
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

7

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

  • Councillor Wong-Tam17
  • Mayor's office15
  • Mayor's Office13
  • Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale12
  • Mayor John Tory11
  • Ward 37 Scarborough Centre8
  • Councillor Mike Layton6
  • Ward 11 University-Rosedale6
Data table· 15 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Councillor Wong-TamCouncillor staff17417 May 2018
Mayor's officeCouncillor staff1554 April 2018
Mayor's OfficeCouncillor staff13134 April 2018
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council1279 May 2018
Mayor John ToryCouncillor staff1118 September 2021
Ward 37 Scarborough CentreMember of council8620 July 2017
Councillor Mike LaytonCouncillor staff6210 December 2020
Ward 11 University-RosedaleMember of council6610 December 2020
Councillor James PasternakCouncillor staff516 November 2020
Office of Councillor Wong-TamCouncillor staff539 May 2018
Councillor Michael ThompsonCouncillor staff3029 June 2017
MayorMember of council3326 April 2017
Ward 18 DavenportMember of council3327 September 2016
City Manager's OfficeCity staff116 November 2020
Ward 6 York CentreMember of council116 November 2020
All registrations· 7 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM30866The Great Eagle Development and Project Management Limited33 Gerrard Street WestPlanning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Develop…17 November 2020 – 17 November 20259
SM30431Great Eagle Hotels (Canada) Limited33 Gerrard Street WestPlanning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Develop…6 August 2020 – 4 August 202515
SM24215The Great Eagle Development and Project Management Limited33 Gerrard Street WestPlanning and Development Application, Zoning By-law21 March 2017 – 31 December 202428
SM23954Great Eagle Hotels (Canada) Limited33 Gerrard Street WestPlanning and Development Application, Zoning By-law24 January 2017 – 29 December 202046
SM22655UNITE HERE Local 7533 Gerrard Street WestPlanning and Development Application, Zoning By-law13 January 2016 – 31 December 20173
SM21967Great Eagle Hotels (Canada) Limited33 Gerrard Street WestPlanning and Development Application, Zoning By-law23 June 2015 – 21 December 20218
SM11479Astral Media Outdoor, L.P.33 Gerrard Street WestSigns2 April 2008 – 31 August 20100

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

3
Data table· 3 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
21 234931 STE 11 SB
Development application
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)5 November 2021Under Review
In progress
19 261101 STE 11 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)13 December 2019Under Review
In progress
15 230523 STE 27 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)30 September 2015OMB Approved
Approved

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

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.

Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 11

1 lobbied · 5 matched

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

Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide

16 lobbied · 48 matched

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

Data table· 4 rows
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 11: 1 lobbied and 5 matched unlobbied applications in 1 matched stratum
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied1Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied5Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide: 16 lobbied and 48 matched unlobbied applications in 15 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied16Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied48Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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 11

46 lobbied · 113 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied1,629

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=2
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=12

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied9%
  • 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 11: 46 lobbied and 113 matched unlobbied applications in 26 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied46—100% (n=2)0%9%0.09
Matched, unlobbied1131,629100% (n=12)0%2%0.02
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.

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 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=9
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=4

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied10%
  • Matched, unlobbied11%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied1,925
  • Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=64
  • Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied13%
  • Matched, unlobbied13%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 11: 69 lobbied and 60 matched unlobbied applications in 31 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied69—100% (n=9)0%10%0.04
Matched, unlobbied60—100% (n=4)0%11%0.03
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5731,925100% (n=64)0%13%0.08
Matched, unlobbied7631,79398% (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.