lobbyTO

Address · Ward 6 · James Pasternak

555 Finch Ave W

Registrations naming this address
5
2 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
33
4 offices contacted
Applications at this address
2
No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 6 · James Pasternak
Location
43.77160, -79.44738
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

5

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

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

  • Ward 10 York Centre30
  • Office of Councillor James Pasternak, Ward 101
  • Ward 6 York Centre1
  • James Pasternak1
Data table· 4 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 10 York CentreMember of council30530 October 2018
Office of Councillor James Pasternak, Ward 10Councillor staff1024 January 2017
Ward 6 York CentreMember of council1010 January 2020
James PasternakMember of council1012 July 2023
All registrations· 5 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM23117Advent Health Care Corporation555 Finch Avenue West.Planning and Development Application, Site Plan13 May 2016 – 12 May 20171
SM23118Advent Health Care Corproation555 Finch Avenue WestPlanning and Development Application, Site Plan13 May 2016 – 13 May 20171
SM23001Advent Health Care Corporation555 Finch Ave West.Planning and Development, Environmental Assessment; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan15 April 2016 – 31 December 202631
SM11988Advent Health Care Corporation555 Finch Avenue WestPlanning Applications: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments18 July 2008 – 16 March 20150
SM11989Advent Health Care Corporation555 Finch Avenue WestPlanning Applications: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments18 July 2008 – 28 August 20130

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

2
Data table· 2 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
B0004/25NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Consent (severance) (CO)17 March 2025Closed
Approved
B0013/18NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Consent (severance) (CO)9 March 2018Closed
Approved

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.

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
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied2618479% (n=24)21%15%25%
Matched, unlobbied17911588% (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.