Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
355 Adelaide St W
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.64674, -79.39455
- 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
6These 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· 17 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ausma Malik | Councillor staff | 14 | 0 | 3 February 2026 |
| Development Review | City staff | 11 | 0 | 5 September 2025 |
| Housing Secretariat | City staff | 9 | 2 | 17 February 2026 |
| Ausma Malik | Member of council | 7 | 0 | 3 February 2026 |
| Development Review Division | City staff | 3 | 0 | 11 August 2026 |
| CreateTO | Local board | 3 | 2 | 10 March 2025 |
| TTC | Local board | 3 | 0 | 1 August 2025 |
| Olivia Chow | Councillor staff | 3 | 0 | 2 April 2026 |
| Municipal Licensing & Standards | City staff | 2 | 0 | 26 January 2026 |
| waterfront secretariat | City staff | 2 | 0 | 17 February 2026 |
| City Planning, Chief Planner's Office | City staff | 1 | 0 | 15 August 2025 |
| City Planning, Urban Design | City staff | 1 | 0 | 15 August 2025 |
| Corporate Real Estate Management | City staff | 1 | 1 | 10 March 2025 |
| Legal Services | City staff | 1 | 0 | 18 November 2025 |
| Waterfront Secretariat | City staff | 1 | 0 | 24 February 2026 |
| Waterfront secretariat | City staff | 1 | 0 | 24 February 2026 |
| Toronto Parking Authority | Local board | 1 | 0 | 6 March 2025 |
All registrations· 6 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM37141 | Fengate Capital Management Limited | 355 Adelaide Street West | Building Permits; Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development App… | 13 November 2025 – 13 November 2026 | 2 |
| SM37144 | Fengate Capital Management Limited | 355 Adelaide Street West | Affordable Housing; Building Permits; Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study | 13 November 2025 – 13 November 2026 | 16 |
| SM37145 | Fengate Capital Management Limited | 355 Adelaide Street West | Building Permits; Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development App… | 13 November 2025 – 13 November 2026 | 0 |
| SM37148 | Fengate Capital Management Limited | 355 Adelaide Street West | Building Permits; Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development App… | 13 November 2025 – 13 November 2026 | 25 |
| SM36152 | 355 Adelaide Nominee Inc | 355 Adelaide St W | Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development Applicatio… | 25 November 2024 – 7 April 2026 | 15 |
| SM36143 | 355 Adelaide Nominee Inc | 355 Adelaide St W | Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Develop… | 22 November 2024 – 22 November 2026 | 6 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 25 October 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 230436 STE 10 CDUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 13 August 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 198048 STE 10 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 26 June 2020Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 20 160837 STE 10 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 230436 STE 10 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 25 October 2021 | Under Review In progress |
| 21 198048 STE 10 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 13 August 2021 | Under Review In progress |
| 20 160837 STE 10 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 26 June 2020 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
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
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 Condominium (CD), Ward 10
4 lobbied · 25 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 4 | 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 | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 28 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 0% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 95 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.03 |
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 10
66 lobbied · 165 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 66 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 3% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 165 | — | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 97% (n=98) | 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 10
88 lobbied · 94 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
571 lobbied · 760 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 88 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 10% | 0.03 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 94 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 5% | 0.01 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 571 | — | 100% (n=78) | 0% | 12% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 760 | — | 96% (n=78) | 4% | 14% | 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.