lobbyTO

Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik

39 Queens Quay E

Registrations naming this address
2
2 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
8
5 offices contacted
Applications at this address
2
1 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Location
43.64171, -79.37171
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

2

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

  • Office of Councillor McConnell, Ward 283
  • Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale2
  • Mayor's Office1
  • Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park1
  • Ward 22 St. Paul's1
Data table· 5 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Office of Councillor McConnell, Ward 28Councillor staff3125 May 2011
Ward 28 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council2125 May 2011
Mayor's OfficeCouncillor staff114 April 2011
Ward 14 Parkdale-High ParkMember of council1125 May 2011
Ward 22 St. Paul'sMember of council1125 May 2011
All registrations· 2 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM16425Redpath Sugar Ltd.39 Queens Quay East.Planning and Development Application, Official Plan23 May 2011 – 30 December 20125
SM16109Pier 27 Toronto (North) Inc.39 Queens Quay East.Planning and Development, Combined Application31 March 2011 – 1 December 20263

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

2
Data table· 2 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
20 112090 STE 10 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)4 February 2020Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
10 147097 STE 28 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)7 April 2010Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)

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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 10

66 lobbied · 165 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied3%
  • 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 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied66—100% (n=5)0%3%0.05
Matched, unlobbied165—100% (n=11)0%2%0.04
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—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.