Address · Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
44 Jackes Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Location
- 43.68582, -79.39102
- 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
5These 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· 13 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 22 St. Paul's | Member of council | 6 | 4 | 12 July 2018 |
| Councillor Matlow | Councillor staff | 3 | 3 | 12 October 2016 |
| Office of Councillor J. Matlow, Ward 22 | Councillor staff | 3 | 2 | 4 July 2018 |
| Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul's | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 13 May 2019 |
| Josh Matlow | Councillor staff | 2 | 1 | 25 March 2026 |
| Josh Matlow | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 8 October 2024 |
| Toronto Fire Services | City staff | 1 | 0 | 2 November 2021 |
| Councillor Josh Matlow's Ward 12 Toronto | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 3 April 2019 |
| Office of Councillor Matlow, Ward 12 | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 10 December 2018 |
| Office of Councillor Matlow,Ward 22 | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 12 July 2018 |
| Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 4 July 2018 |
| Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 4 July 2018 |
| Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 4 July 2018 |
All registrations· 5 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM32528 | QuadReal Property Group Limited Partnership | 44 Jackes Ave | Planning and Development | 2 November 2021 – 24 May 2024 | 1 |
| SM26466 | QuadReal Property Group Limited Partnership | 44 Jackes Avenue | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 11 July 2018 – 31 December 2024 | 2 |
| SM24077 | QuadReal Property Group Limited Partnership | 44 Jackes Avenue | By-law / Regulation; Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development … | 23 February 2017 – 31 December 2026 | 11 |
| SM23536 | Bentall Kennedy (Canada) LP | 44 Jackes Avenue | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 20 September 2016 – 20 September 2021 | 8 |
| SM22647 | Bentall Kennedy (Canada) LP | 44 Jackes Avenue | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 12 January 2016 – 30 December 2016 | 3 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 2 January 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0005/24TEYClosed · Refused
- Submitted 27 July 2017Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 17 206817 STE 22 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 23 November 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 255319 STE 22 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0005/24TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 2 January 2024 | Closed Refused |
| 17 206817 STE 22 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 27 July 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 255319 STE 22 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 23 November 2016 | 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
44 Jackes Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
16 255319 STE 22 OZ · submitted 23 November 2016 · Closed · from registration SM23536 (Bentall Kennedy (Canada) LP)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.70
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 SM23536: Matters relating to the redevelopment of 33 Rosehill Avenue and 44 Jackes Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 255319 STE 22 OZ at 44 Jackes Ave: The City received an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a new high-rise residential building in the northwest corner of a 1.26 hectare site with two existing high-rise rental apartment buildings. The application was approved in principle by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) fo… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Matters relating to the redevelopment of 33 Rosehill Avenue and 44 Jackes Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 33 ROSEHILL AVE
- application_address
- 33 ROSEHILL AVE
44 Jackes Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
16 255319 STE 22 OZ · submitted 23 November 2016 · Closed · from registration SM24077 (QuadReal Property Group Limited Partnership)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.89
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 SM24077: Lobbying for rezoning and official plan amendments for the following project: Bretton Place (33 Rosehill Avenue and 44 Jackes Avenue). (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 255319 STE 22 OZ at 44 Jackes Ave: The City received an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a new high-rise residential building in the northwest corner of a 1.26 hectare site with two existing high-rise rental apartment buildings. The application was approved in principle by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) fo… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Lobbying for rezoning and official plan amendments for the following project: Bretton Place (33 Rosehill Avenue and 44 Jackes Avenue).
Matched fields
- address
- 33 ROSEHILL AVE
- application_address
- 33 ROSEHILL AVE
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 12
20 lobbied · 357 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 | 106 | 50% (n=12) | 50% | 35% | 86% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 357 | 145 | 90% (n=291) | 10% | 5% | 30% |
| 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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 12
32 lobbied · 72 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 | 32 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 3% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| 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 12
44 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 | 44 | — | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 14% | 0.02 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| 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.