lobbyTO

Address · Ward 4 · Gord Perks

376 Dufferin Street

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page
Registrations naming this address
1
1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations
1
1 offices contacted
Applications at this address
2
6 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 4 · Gord Perks
Location
43.64150, -79.42883
How this address was located
Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 376R DUFFERIN ST.

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

1

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

  • Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park1
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 14 Parkdale-High ParkMember of council106 March 2017
All registrations· 1 row
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM23584Hullmark Developments Limited376 Dufferin StreetBuilding Permits; Planning and Development Application, Minor Variance4 October 2016 – 30 November 20171

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

2
Data table· 2 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
22 198105 STE 04 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)31 August 2022Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
A1222/16TEY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)13 December 2016Closed
Refused

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.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 4

12 lobbied · 20 matched

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

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

571 lobbied · 760 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=78
  • Matched, unlobbied96% n=78

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied14%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 4: 12 lobbied and 20 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied12Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied20Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied571—100% (n=78)0%12%0.08
Matched, unlobbied760—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.

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 4

8 lobbied · 130 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 4: 8 lobbied and 130 matched unlobbied applications in 6 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied8Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied130Hidden: 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
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied17312675% (n=154)25%19%43%
Matched, unlobbied3,64611491% (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.