4 Milepost Pl

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 1; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 7; 2 offices contacted
Applications at this address: 1; No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items: 0; Items naming this address

About this address

Ward: Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
Location: 43.70233, -79.34843
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

Mohican Holdings LimitedSM37421 · 20 February 20267

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Data table· 2 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Rachel Chernos Lin	Councillor staff	6	4	15 April 2026
Rachel Chernos Lin	Member of council	1	0	15 April 2026

All registrations· 1 row

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM37421	Mohican Holdings Limited	4 Milepost Place	Planning and Development Application; Zoning By-law	20 February 2026 – 31 December 2026	7

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 6 July 2026Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 26 196387 NNY 15 OZUnder Review · In progress

Data table· 1 row

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
26 196387 NNY 15 OZ Development application	Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)	6 July 2026	Under Review In progress

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.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 15

20 lobbied · 36 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=4
Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied15%
Matched, unlobbied30%

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 15: 20 lobbied and 36 matched unlobbied applications in 15 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	20	—	100% (n=4)	0%	15%	0.05
Matched, unlobbied	36	—	100% (n=6)	0%	30%	0.01

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
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.