Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
400 King St W
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.64606, -79.39321
- 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
3These 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· 10 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York | Member of council | 19 | 4 | 19 June 2020 |
| Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 11 | 6 | 26 November 2018 |
| Councillor Cressy | Councillor staff | 7 | 3 | 28 November 2018 |
| Councillor Joe Cressy | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 4 November 2021 |
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 2 | 2 | 15 August 2018 |
| Office of Councillor Cressy, Ward 10 | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 28 February 2019 |
| Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York | Councillor staff | 2 | 1 | 15 January 2019 |
| Ausma Malik | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 25 March 2025 |
| Office of Councillor Cressy | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 9 November 2018 |
| Ausma Malik | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 28 March 2024 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM26944 | 400 King St W Inc | 400 King St W | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 2 November 2018 – 1 July 2020 | 20 |
| SM24475 | Charlotte King Residences Corp. | 400 King St W | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 5 May 2017 – 2 December 2017 | 1 |
| SM24472 | Plazacorp Investments Limited | 400 King Street West | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 4 May 2017 – 31 December 2026 | 28 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 27 September 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0843/24TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 8 November 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 235464 STE 10 CDDraft Plan Approved · Approved
- Submitted 15 November 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 249738 STE 10 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 30 June 2017Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 17 190839 STE 20 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0843/24TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 27 September 2024 | Closed Approved |
| 21 235464 STE 10 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 8 November 2021 | Draft Plan Approved Approved |
| 19 249738 STE 10 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 15 November 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 17 190839 STE 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 30 June 2017 | 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
400 King St W · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
17 190839 STE 20 OZ · submitted 30 June 2017 · Closed · from registration SM24555 (Plazacorp Investments Limited)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.86
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 SM24555: Re-zoning application for 400-420 King Street West (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 190839 STE 20 OZ at 400 King St W: Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 47-storey mixed-use building (156.9 metres, including mechanical penthouse), with a total of 612 residential units and approximately 3419 square metres of ground floor retail space and second floor office space. The total proposed gross floor area is 42,066 squar… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Re-zoning application for 400-420 King Street West
Matched fields
- address
- 400-420 KING ST W
- application_address
- 400 KING ST W
400 King St W · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
17 190839 STE 20 OZ · submitted 30 June 2017 · Closed · from registration SM26944 (400 King St W Inc)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.83
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 SM26944: to seek approval from the City of Toronto for the Official Plan and Rezoning of 400 King St W to allow a mixed use development (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 190839 STE 20 OZ at 400 King St W: Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 47-storey mixed-use building (156.9 metres, including mechanical penthouse), with a total of 612 residential units and approximately 3419 square metres of ground floor retail space and second floor office space. The total proposed gross floor area is 42,066 squar… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: to seek approval from the City of Toronto for the Official Plan and Rezoning of 400 King St W to allow a mixed use development
Matched fields
- address
- 400 KING ST W
- application_address
- 400 KING ST W
Council and committee items naming this address
None.
Comparison with similar applications
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 10
20 lobbied · 261 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
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 | 20 | 136 | 100% (n=20) | 0% | 0% | 14% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 261 | 138 | 93% (n=214) | 7% | 5% | 18% |
| 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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 10
4 lobbied · 25 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval 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 | 25 | 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 | 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.
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 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 | 66 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 3% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 165 | — | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| 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.
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 10
88 lobbied · 94 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 | 88 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 10% | 0.03 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 94 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 5% | 0.01 |
| 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.