Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe

491 College St

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 1; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 11; 2 offices contacted
Applications at this address: 1; No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items: 0; Items naming this address

About this address

Ward: Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Location: 43.65582, -79.40953
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

RioCan Real Estate Investment TrustSM20060 · 4 February 201411

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Councillor Layton6
Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina5

Data table· 2 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Councillor Layton	Councillor staff	6	6	4 February 2014
Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina	Member of council	5	5	20 January 2017

All registrations· 1 row

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM20060	RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust	491 College St.	Building Permits	4 February 2014 – 31 December 2020	11

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 14 May 2015Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 15 157324 STE 19 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)

Data table· 1 row

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
15 157324 STE 19 SA Development application	Site Plan Approval (SA)	14 May 2015	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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 11

46 lobbied · 113 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied1,629

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=2
Matched, unlobbied100% n=12

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied9%
Matched, unlobbied2%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=61
Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Data table· 4 rows

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 11: 46 lobbied and 113 matched unlobbied applications in 26 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	46	—	100% (n=2)	0%	9%	0.09
Matched, unlobbied	113	1,629	100% (n=12)	0%	2%	0.02

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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.