Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
462 Front St W
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.64227, -79.39716
- 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· 6 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Councillor Cressy | Councillor staff | 15 | 2 | 18 December 2019 |
| Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 15 | 9 | 27 July 2017 |
| Major Capital Infrastructure Coordination Office | City staff | 5 | 0 | 16 April 2018 |
| Office of Councillor Cressy, Ward 10 | Councillor staff | 5 | 1 | 18 December 2019 |
| Councillor Cressy | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 14 February 2017 |
| Councillor Joe Cressy Office | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 19 April 2018 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM24223 | Diamondcorp | 462 Front Street West | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 21 March 2017 – 1 August 2023 | 31 |
| SM18939 | Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2 | 462 Front St W. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 14 February 2013 – 21 March 2017 | 5 |
| SM18940 | Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2 | 462 Front St W. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 14 February 2013 – 21 March 2017 | 7 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
9- Submitted 6 December 2023Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 23 233331 STE 10 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 29 November 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 242715 STE 10 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 28 March 2018Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 18 135637 STE 20 SBClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 28 March 2018Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 18 135656 STE 20 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 10 October 2017Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 17 245526 STE 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 10 October 2017Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 17 245539 STE 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 10 October 2017Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 17 245560 STE 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 21 December 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 269540 STE 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 12 February 2014Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 14 116571 STE 20 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 9 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 233331 STE 10 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 6 December 2023 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 21 242715 STE 10 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 29 November 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 135637 STE 20 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 28 March 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 135656 STE 20 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 28 March 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 17 245526 STE 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 10 October 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 17 245539 STE 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 10 October 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 17 245560 STE 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 10 October 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 269540 STE 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 21 December 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 116571 STE 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 12 February 2014 | 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
16 Spadina Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
14 116571 STE 20 OZ · submitted 12 February 2014 · Closed · from registration SM18939 (Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.75
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 SM18939: 440, 450 462 Front St W. 425, 439, 441, 443 Wellington St. W 1 & 19 Draper St. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 116571 STE 20 OZ at 16 Spadina Ave: Proposed seven mixed use buildings with approximately 287,640 square metres of gross floor area including 104928 square metres of office space, 44741 square metres of retail space and 137971square metres of residential space. All seven building will house at least two uses, with some buildings alon… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 440, 450 462 Front St W. 425, 439, 441, 443 Wellington St. W 1 & 19 Draper St.
Matched fields
- address
- 462 FRONT ST W
- application_address
- 462 FRONT ST W
16 Spadina Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
14 116571 STE 20 OZ · submitted 12 February 2014 · Closed · from registration SM18940 (Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.75
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 SM18940: 440, 450 462 Front St W. 425, 439, 441, 443 Wellington St. W 1 & 19 Draper St. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 116571 STE 20 OZ at 16 Spadina Ave: Proposed seven mixed use buildings with approximately 287,640 square metres of gross floor area including 104928 square metres of office space, 44741 square metres of retail space and 137971square metres of residential space. All seven building will house at least two uses, with some buildings alon… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 440, 450 462 Front St W. 425, 439, 441, 443 Wellington St. W 1 & 19 Draper St.
Matched fields
- address
- 462 FRONT ST W
- application_address
- 462 FRONT ST W
16 Spadina Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
14 116571 STE 20 OZ · submitted 12 February 2014 · Closed · from registration SM19043 (RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.72
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 SM19043: rezoning and spa required for development of 440,444,450,462 Front street 425,439,441,443 Wellington and 1,19 Draper Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 116571 STE 20 OZ at 16 Spadina Ave: Proposed seven mixed use buildings with approximately 287,640 square metres of gross floor area including 104928 square metres of office space, 44741 square metres of retail space and 137971square metres of residential space. All seven building will house at least two uses, with some buildings alon… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: rezoning and spa required for development of 440,444,450,462 Front street 425,439,441,443 Wellington and 1,19 Draper Street
- particulars: rezoning and spa required for development of 440,444,450,462 Front street 425,439,441,443 Wellington and 1,19 Draper Street
Matched fields
- address
- 19 DRAPER ST
- application_address
- 19 DRAPER ST
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.
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL), City-wide
2 lobbied · 6 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 6 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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.
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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 10
1 lobbied · 8 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 8 | 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 | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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.