Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
46 Charlotte St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.64678, -79.39420
- 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· 5 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Development Review | City staff | 9 | 0 | 5 September 2025 |
| TTC | Local board | 3 | 0 | 1 August 2025 |
| Corporate Real Estate Management | City staff | 1 | 1 | 10 March 2025 |
| CreateTO | Local board | 1 | 1 | 10 March 2025 |
| Toronto Parking Authority | Local board | 1 | 0 | 6 March 2025 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM36147 | 355 Adelaide Nominee Inc | 46 Charlotte Street | Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Develop… | 25 November 2024 – 25 November 2026 | 0 |
| SM36152 | 355 Adelaide Nominee Inc | 46 Charlotte Street | Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development Applicatio… | 25 November 2024 – 7 April 2026 | 15 |
| SM21758 | Cityzen Development Group | 46 Charlotte Street | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan | 5 May 2015 – 6 May 2016 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
5- Submitted 25 October 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 230436 STE 10 CDUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 13 August 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 198048 STE 10 SANOAC Issued · Approved
- Submitted 26 June 2020Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 20 160837 STE 10 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 3 June 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 167239 STE 20 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 3 June 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 167253 STE 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 230436 STE 10 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 25 October 2021 | Under Review In progress |
| 21 198048 STE 10 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 13 August 2021 | NOAC Issued Approved |
| 20 160837 STE 10 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 26 June 2020 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 167239 STE 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 3 June 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 167253 STE 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 3 June 2016 | 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
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 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 66 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 3% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 165 | 1,881 | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| 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.
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
573 lobbied · 763 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 | 88 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 11% | 0.03 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 94 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 5% | 0.01 |
| 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.