Address · Ward 12 · Josh Matlow

45 Dunfield Ave

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 1; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 12; 12 offices contacted
Applications at this address: 4; No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items: 0; Items naming this address

About this address

Ward: Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Location: 43.70620, -79.39433
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

Shiplake Management CompanySM19538 · 19 July 201312

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Councillor Matlow, Ward 221
Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park1
Ward 18 Davenport1
Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina1
Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina1
Ward 21 St. Paul's1
Ward 22 St. Paul's1
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale1

Data table· 12 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Councillor Matlow, Ward 22	Councillor staff	1	1	7 August 2014
Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park	Member of council	1	0	15 January 2016
Ward 18 Davenport	Member of council	1	0	15 January 2016
Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina	Member of council	1	0	15 January 2016
Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina	Member of council	1	0	15 January 2016
Ward 21 St. Paul's	Member of council	1	0	15 January 2016
Ward 22 St. Paul's	Member of council	1	1	7 August 2014
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale	Member of council	1	0	15 January 2016
Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale	Member of council	1	0	15 January 2016
Ward 29 Toronto-Danforth	Member of council	1	0	15 January 2016
Ward 30 Toronto-Danforth	Member of council	1	0	15 January 2016
Ward 32 Beaches-East York	Member of council	1	0	15 January 2016

All registrations· 1 row

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM19538	Shiplake Management Company	45 Dunfield Avenue	Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law	19 July 2013 – 30 December 2016	12

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 13 August 2018Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0779/18TEYClosed · Approved
Submitted 23 January 2017Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0012/17TEYClosed · Approved
Submitted 20 May 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 159051 STE 22 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted 28 November 2013Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 13 271686 STE 22 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)

Data table· 4 rows

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
A0779/18TEY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	13 August 2018	Closed Approved
B0012/17TEY Committee of Adjustment application	Consent (severance) (CO)	23 January 2017	Closed Approved
16 159051 STE 22 SA Development application	Site Plan Approval (SA)	20 May 2016	Closed Closed (outcome not recorded)
13 271686 STE 22 OZ Development application	Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)	28 November 2013	Closed Closed (outcome not recorded)

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

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 matched

Median days

Lobbied106
Matched, unlobbied145

Approval rate

Lobbied50% n=12
Matched, unlobbied90% n=291

Refusal rate

Lobbied50%
Matched, unlobbied10%

Appeal rate

Lobbied35%
Matched, unlobbied5%

Objection rate

Lobbied86%
Matched, unlobbied30%

Minor variance (MV), City-wide

173 lobbied · 3,646 matched

Median days

Lobbied126
Matched, unlobbied114

Approval rate

Lobbied75% n=154
Matched, unlobbied91% n=3,058

Refusal rate

Lobbied25%
Matched, unlobbied9%

Appeal rate

Lobbied19%
Matched, unlobbied4%

Objection rate

Lobbied43%
Matched, unlobbied27%

Data table· 4 rows

Minor variance (MV), Ward 12: 20 lobbied and 357 matched unlobbied applications in 7 matched strata
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%

Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
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.

Committee of Adjustment applications

Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide

26 lobbied · 179 matched

Median days

Lobbied184
Matched, unlobbied115

Approval rate

Lobbied79% n=24
Matched, unlobbied88% n=133

Refusal rate

Lobbied21%
Matched, unlobbied12%

Appeal rate

Lobbied15%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Objection rate

Lobbied25%
Matched, unlobbied25%

Data table· 2 rows

Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide: 26 lobbied and 179 matched unlobbied applications in 21 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	26	184	79% (n=24)	21%	15%	25%
Matched, unlobbied	179	115	88% (n=133)	12%	3%	25%

Submission to hearing. Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.

Development applications

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 12

32 lobbied · 72 matched

Approval rate

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

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied3%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=63
Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Data table· 4 rows

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 12: 32 lobbied and 72 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
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

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.

Development applications

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 12

44 lobbied · 60 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=9
Matched, unlobbied100% n=9

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied14%
Matched, unlobbied10%

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 12: 44 lobbied and 60 matched unlobbied applications in 26 matched strata
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

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.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.