Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe

357 College St

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 0
Communications on those registrations: 0
Applications at this address: 4; No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items: 0; Items naming this address

About this address

Ward: Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Location: 43.65704, -79.40362
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.

None.

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

No communications recorded.

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 19 August 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0738/24TEYClosed · Approved
Submitted 2 March 2018Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0234/18TEYClosed · Approved
Submitted 29 January 2018Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 18 111118 STE 20 SANOAC Issued · Approved
Submitted 23 June 2017Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0707/17TEYClosed · Withdrawn

Data table· 4 rows

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
A0738/24TEY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	19 August 2024	Closed Approved
A0234/18TEY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	2 March 2018	Closed Approved
18 111118 STE 20 SA Development application	Site Plan Approval (SA)	29 January 2018	NOAC Issued Approved
A0707/17TEY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	23 June 2017	Closed Withdrawn

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.

Minor variance (MV), Ward 11

16 lobbied · 354 matched

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

Minor variance (MV), City-wide

173 lobbied · 3,646 matched

Median days

Lobbied126
Matched, unlobbied114

Approval rate

Lobbied75% n=154
Matched, unlobbied91% n=3,058

Refusal rate

Lobbied25%
Matched, unlobbied9%

Appeal rate

Lobbied19%
Matched, unlobbied4%

Objection rate

Lobbied43%
Matched, unlobbied27%

Data table· 4 rows

Minor variance (MV), Ward 11: 16 lobbied and 354 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	16	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	354	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
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

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 11

46 lobbied · 113 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=3
Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied9%
Matched, unlobbied2%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=63
Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

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
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	46	—	100% (n=3)	0%	9%	0.09
Matched, unlobbied	113	—	100% (n=11)	0%	2%	0.02

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.