Address · Ward 3 · Amber Morley

5365 Dundas St W

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 2; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 25; 8 offices contacted
Applications at this address: 7; No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items: 0; Items naming this address

About this address

Ward: Ward 3 · Amber Morley
Location: 43.63535, -79.54036
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

Concert Properties LtdSM25429 · 11 December 201718
Concert Properties LtdSM19258 · 1 May 20137

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Office of Councillor Di Ciano6
Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore6
Office of Councillor Mark Grimes5
Councillor Mark Grimes2
Office of Councillor Mark Grimes, Ward 32
Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore2
Councillor Di Ciano, Ward 51
Office of Councilor Di Ciano1

Data table· 8 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Office of Councillor Di Ciano	Councillor staff	6	1	3 July 2018
Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore	Member of council	6	6	23 March 2018
Office of Councillor Mark Grimes	Councillor staff	5	0	27 September 2021
Councillor Mark Grimes	Councillor staff	2	0	14 August 2019
Office of Councillor Mark Grimes, Ward 3	Councillor staff	2	1	19 September 2019
Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore	Member of council	2	1	28 July 2020
Councillor Di Ciano, Ward 5	Councillor staff	1	1	27 June 2017
Office of Councilor Di Ciano	Councillor staff	1	1	23 March 2018

All registrations· 2 rows

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM25429	Concert Properties Ltd	5365 Dundas St. W.	Affordable Housing; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development A…	11 December 2017 – 30 September 2023	18
SM19258	Concert Properties Ltd	5365 Dundas St. W.	Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan	1 May 2013 – 30 September 2017	7

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 28 October 2025Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0420/25EYKClosed · Approved
Submitted 23 October 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0434/24EYKClosed · Approved
Submitted 22 November 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 240521 WET 03 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted 25 June 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0355/21EYKClosed · Approved
Submitted 9 July 2020Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0026/20EYKClosed · Approved
Submitted 13 February 2018Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 18 116600 WET 05 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted 20 December 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 268817 WET 05 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)

Data table· 7 rows

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
A0420/25EYK Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	28 October 2025	Closed Approved
A0434/24EYK Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	23 October 2024	Closed Approved
21 240521 WET 03 CD Development application	Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)	22 November 2021	Closed Closed (outcome not recorded)
A0355/21EYK Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	25 June 2021	Closed Approved
B0026/20EYK Committee of Adjustment application	Consent (severance) (CO)	9 July 2020	Closed Approved
18 116600 WET 05 CD Development application	Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)	13 February 2018	Closed Closed (outcome not recorded)
16 268817 WET 05 SA Development application	Site Plan Approval (SA)	20 December 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

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 3

4 lobbied · 265 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Minor variance (MV), City-wide

173 lobbied · 3,646 matched

Median days

Lobbied126
Matched, unlobbied114

Approval rate

Lobbied75% n=154
Matched, unlobbied91% n=3,058

Refusal rate

Lobbied25%
Matched, unlobbied9%

Appeal rate

Lobbied19%
Matched, unlobbied4%

Objection rate

Lobbied43%
Matched, unlobbied27%

Data table· 4 rows

Minor variance (MV), Ward 3: 4 lobbied and 265 matched unlobbied applications in 4 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	4	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	265	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
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

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide

28 lobbied · 95 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=3
Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Data table· 2 rows

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide: 28 lobbied and 95 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
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.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.

Committee of Adjustment applications

Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide

26 lobbied · 179 matched

Median days

Lobbied184
Matched, unlobbied115

Approval rate

Lobbied79% n=24
Matched, unlobbied88% n=133

Refusal rate

Lobbied21%
Matched, unlobbied12%

Appeal rate

Lobbied15%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Objection rate

Lobbied25%
Matched, unlobbied25%

Data table· 2 rows

Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide: 26 lobbied and 179 matched unlobbied applications in 21 matched strata
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.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.

Development applications

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 3

24 lobbied · 100 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied1,629

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=5
Matched, unlobbied70% n=10

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied30%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied4%

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 3: 24 lobbied and 100 matched unlobbied applications in 18 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	24	—	100% (n=5)	0%	4%	0.25
Matched, unlobbied	100	1,629	70% (n=10)	30%	4%	0.14

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.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.