Address · Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
50 Thermos Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
- Location
- 43.73118, -79.28288
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michael Thompson | Councillor staff | 8 | 0 | 21 October 2024 |
| Councillor Michael Thompson | Councillor staff | 5 | 1 | 13 January 2022 |
| Development Review | City staff | 4 | 0 | 15 January 2025 |
| Ward 37 Scarborough Centre | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 19 August 2016 |
| Ward 21 Scarborough Centre | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 28 April 2021 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM31195 | RioCan Management Inc. | 50 Thermos Road | Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Develop… | 26 January 2021 – 23 January 2027 | 18 |
| SM23466 | Costco Wholesale | 50 Thermos Road | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 19 August 2016 – 18 August 2017 | 1 |
| SM22962 | RioCan Real Estate Management Inc. | 50 Thermos Road | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan | 4 April 2016 – 4 April 2019 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 14 October 2016Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0057/16SCClosed · Approved
- Submitted 9 February 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 114425 ESC 37 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 30 November 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 258686 ESC 37 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 19 June 2009Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 09 151961 ESC 37 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| B0057/16SC Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 14 October 2016 | Closed Approved |
| 16 114425 ESC 37 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 9 February 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 15 258686 ESC 37 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 30 November 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 09 151961 ESC 37 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 19 June 2009 | 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
1966 Eglinton Ave E · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
15 258686 ESC 37 OZ · submitted 30 November 2015 · Closed · from registration SM22962 (RioCan Real Estate Management Inc.)
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 SM22962: 1966-2050 Eglinton Avenue East and 50 Thermos Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 258686 ESC 37 OZ at 1966 Eglinton Ave E: Official Plan Amendment application to add a Site and Area Specific Policy ("SASP") to the property at 1966-2050 Eglinton Avenue East (RioCan lands) to permit a mixed-use development with new streets and parkland. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 1966-2050 Eglinton Avenue East and 50 Thermos Road
Matched fields
- address
- 1966-2050 EGLINTON AVE E
- application_address
- 1966 EGLINTON AVE E
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.
Consent (severance) (CO), Ward 21
3 lobbied · 5 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 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 | 3 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 5 | 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 | 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.
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 21
10 lobbied · 44 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 10 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 44 | 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 | 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 21
15 lobbied · 21 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 15 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 21 | 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 | 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.