Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
5 Scrivener Sq
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Location
- 43.68047, -79.39056
- 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· 13 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 25 | 9 | 21 July 2018 |
| Office of Councillor Layton, Ward 11 | Councillor staff | 18 | 3 | 10 January 2020 |
| Ward 11 University-Rosedale | Member of council | 9 | 4 | 22 October 2019 |
| Councillor Mike Layton | Councillor staff | 8 | 1 | 16 June 2022 |
| Councillor Wong-Tam | Councillor staff | 6 | 1 | 13 July 2018 |
| Office of Councillor Layton | Councillor staff | 3 | 0 | 28 November 2019 |
| Councillor Wong Tam Office Ward 27 | Councillor staff | 2 | 1 | 4 June 2018 |
| Councillor Joe Cressy | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 4 July 2018 |
| Councillor Joe Cressy Office | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 4 July 2018 |
| Councillor Mike Layton's Office | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 19 March 2020 |
| Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 3 July 2018 |
| Ward 21 St. Paul's | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 26 June 2018 |
| Ward 22 St. Paul's | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 27 June 2018 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM24274 | Diamondcorp | 5 Scrivener Square | Planning and Development, Heritage; Planning and Development, Combined Application | 27 March 2017 – 20 July 2026 | 74 |
| SM23947 | Whitecastle New Urban Fund 3 | 5 Scrivener Square | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan | 23 January 2017 – 27 April 2017 | 1 |
| SM23222 | Whitecastle New Urban Fund | 5 Scrivener Square | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B… | 6 June 2016 – 27 March 2017 | 2 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
5- Submitted 9 February 2026Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0094/26TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 26 April 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0400/24TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 27 March 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-5416083Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 5 December 2018Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 18 265043 STE 11 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 29 May 2017Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 17 168095 STE 27 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0094/26TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 9 February 2026 | Closed Approved |
| A0400/24TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 26 April 2024 | Closed Approved |
| COA-5416083 Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 27 March 2024 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| 18 265043 STE 11 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 5 December 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 17 168095 STE 27 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 29 May 2017 | 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
5 Scrivener Sq · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
17 168095 STE 27 OZ · submitted 29 May 2017 · Closed · from registration SM23222 (Whitecastle New Urban Fund)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.83
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 SM23222: 1095-1107 Yonge Stree 5 Scrivener Square 8, 10 10R Price Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 168095 STE 27 OZ at 5 Scrivener Sq: The City has recieved Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to allow an 8-storey (35 metre) building and a 26-storey (97.3 metre) building with a total of 182 rental dwelling units, 3,085 square metres of non-residential floor area, and 164 vehicle parking spaces within a… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 1095-1107 Yonge Stree 5 Scrivener Square 8, 10 10R Price Street
Matched fields
- address
- 1095-1107 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 1095 YONGE ST
5 Scrivener Sq · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
17 168095 STE 27 OZ · submitted 29 May 2017 · Closed · from registration SM23947 (Whitecastle New Urban Fund 3)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.80
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 SM23947: 1095 - 1107 Yonge Street 5 Scrivener Square 8, 10, 10R Price Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 168095 STE 27 OZ at 5 Scrivener Sq: The City has recieved Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to allow an 8-storey (35 metre) building and a 26-storey (97.3 metre) building with a total of 182 rental dwelling units, 3,085 square metres of non-residential floor area, and 164 vehicle parking spaces within a… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 1095 - 1107 Yonge Street 5 Scrivener Square 8, 10, 10R Price Street
Matched fields
- address
- 1095-1107 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 1095 YONGE ST
5 Scrivener Sq · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
17 168095 STE 27 OZ · submitted 29 May 2017 · Closed · from registration SM24274 (Diamondcorp)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.73
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 SM24274: Matters relating to proposed redevelopment of 1095-1107 Yonge St, 5 Scrivener Square, 8, 10 10R Price Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 168095 STE 27 OZ at 5 Scrivener Sq: The City has recieved Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to allow an 8-storey (35 metre) building and a 26-storey (97.3 metre) building with a total of 182 rental dwelling units, 3,085 square metres of non-residential floor area, and 164 vehicle parking spaces within a… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Matters relating to proposed redevelopment of 1095-1107 Yonge St, 5 Scrivener Square, 8, 10 10R Price Street
Matched fields
- address
- 1095-1107 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 1095 YONGE ST
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 11
16 lobbied · 354 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 354 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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 11
46 lobbied · 113 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 | 46 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 9% | 0.09 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 113 | 1,629 | 100% (n=12) | 0% | 2% | 0.02 |
| 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 11
69 lobbied · 60 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 | 69 | — | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 11% | 0.03 |
| 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.