Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
399 Bathurst St
- Communications on those registrations
- 0
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Location
- 43.65310, -79.40569
- 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
2These 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
No communications recorded.
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM12585 | University Health Network | 399 Bathurst St. | Planning and Development, Combined Application: Zoning, Site Plan Application | 10 December 2008 – 17 October 2016 | 0 |
| SM12587 | University Health Network | 399 Bathurst St. | Planning and Development, Combined Application: Zoning, Site Plan Application | 10 December 2008 – 13 September 2012 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
5- Submitted 11 May 2023Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 23 144404 STE 11 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 3 May 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0568/21TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 8 August 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0873/19TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 19 December 2008Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 08 231114 STE 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 5 November 2008Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 08 219428 STE 20 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 144404 STE 11 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 11 May 2023 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0568/21TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 3 May 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0873/19TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 8 August 2019 | Closed Approved |
| 08 231114 STE 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 19 December 2008 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 08 219428 STE 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 5 November 2008 | Closed 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
399 Bathurst St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
08 231114 STE 20 SA · submitted 19 December 2008 · Closed · from registration SM12585 (University Health Network)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.84
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM12585: 399 Bathurst St. - Zoning Amendment and Site Plan Application to permit an addition to Toronto Western Hospital (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 08 231114 STE 20 SA at 399 Bathurst St: Application to erect new "Krembil Discovery Centre" research and clinical development building on University Health Network Property -North and East of Dundas and Bathurst. As per applicant's request, Site Plan application will not be circulated until comments are received for the previous Rezoning… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 399 Bathurst St. - Zoning Amendment and Site Plan Application to permit an addition to Toronto Western Hospital
Matched fields
- address
- 399 BATHURST ST
- application_address
- 399 BATHURST ST
399 Bathurst St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
08 231114 STE 20 SA · submitted 19 December 2008 · Closed · from registration SM12587 (University Health Network)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.85
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM12587: 399 Bathurst St. - Zoning Amendment and Site Plan Application to permit an addition to Toronto Western Hospital. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 08 231114 STE 20 SA at 399 Bathurst St: Application to erect new "Krembil Discovery Centre" research and clinical development building on University Health Network Property -North and East of Dundas and Bathurst. As per applicant's request, Site Plan application will not be circulated until comments are received for the previous Rezoning… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 399 Bathurst St. - Zoning Amendment and Site Plan Application to permit an addition to Toronto Western Hospital.
Matched fields
- address
- 399 BATHURST ST
- application_address
- 399 BATHURST ST
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 11
46 lobbied · 113 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 | 46 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 9% | 0.09 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 113 | — | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.02 |
| 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.
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 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide
173 lobbied · 3,646 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 4 rows
| 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. | ||||
| 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
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 11
69 lobbied · 60 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 | 69 | — | 100% (n=10) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 11% | 0.03 |
| 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.