Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe

382 Yonge St

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 2; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 0
Applications at this address: 2; No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items: 0; Items naming this address

About this address

Ward: Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Location: 43.65928, -79.38251
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.

Registrations by communications

Canderel Stoneridge Equity GroupSM11371 · 11 February 20080
Canderel Stoneridge Equity GroupSM11415 · 11 February 20080

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

No communications recorded.

All registrations· 2 rows

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM11371	Canderel Stoneridge Equity Group	382 Yonge Street	Planning Application: official plan and zoning by-law	11 February 2008 – 7 November 2010	0
SM11415	Canderel Stoneridge Equity Group	382 Yonge Street	Planning Application: official plan and zoning by-law	11 February 2008 – 1 November 2011	0

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 27 May 2013Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 13 174868 STE 27 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted 27 June 2012Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 12 201253 STE 27 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)

Data table· 2 rows

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
13 174868 STE 27 CD Development application	Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)	27 May 2013	Closed Closed (outcome not recorded)
12 201253 STE 27 CD Development application	Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)	27 June 2012	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 11

4 lobbied · 10 matched

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

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide

28 lobbied · 95 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=3
Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Data table· 4 rows

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 11: 4 lobbied and 10 matched unlobbied applications in 3 matched strata
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	10	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide: 28 lobbied and 95 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
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.