Address · Ward 1 · Vincent Crisanti
40 Reading Crt
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 1 · Vincent Crisanti
- Location
- 43.69084, -79.58947
- 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
1These 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
Data table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 8 | 1 | 4 April 2015 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM19881 | House of Praise | 40 Reading Court | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B… | 27 November 2013 – 25 November 2015 | 8 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 31 December 2012Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 12 298665 WET 02 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 31 December 2012Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 12 298669 WET 02 SANOAC Issued · Approved
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12 298665 WET 02 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 31 December 2012 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 298669 WET 02 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 31 December 2012 | NOAC Issued Approved |
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
40 Reading Crt · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
12 298665 WET 02 OZ · submitted 31 December 2012 · Closed · from registration SM19881 (House of Praise)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.93
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM19881: 40 Reading Court, Etobicoke (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 298665 WET 02 OZ at 40 Reading Crt: To construct a 6 storey place of worship with office space on vacant lands. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 40 Reading Court, Etobicoke
Matched fields
- address
- 40 READING CRT
- application_address
- 40 READING CRT
40 Reading Crt · Site Plan Approval (SA)
12 298669 WET 02 SA · submitted 31 December 2012 · NOAC Issued · from registration SM19881 (House of Praise)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.92
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM19881: 40 Reading Court, Etobicoke (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 298669 WET 02 SA at 40 Reading Crt: Proposal to construct new 6 storey place of worship. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 40 Reading Court, Etobicoke
Matched fields
- address
- 40 READING CRT
- application_address
- 40 READING CRT
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), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (n=70) | 2% | 13% | 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.
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 1
4 lobbied · 12 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| 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 | 12 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 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.