Address · Ward 23 · Jamaal Myers

5590 Finch Ave E

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 2; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 6; 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 23 · Jamaal Myers
Location: 43.81463, -79.24224
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

Rodenbury Investments LimitedSM19715 · 2 October 20134
Rodenbury Investments LimitedSM22891 · 15 March 20162

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Ward 42 Scarborough-Rouge River4
Office of Councillor Cho, Ward 422

Data table· 2 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 42 Scarborough-Rouge River	Member of council	4	2	11 April 2016
Office of Councillor Cho, Ward 42	Councillor staff	2	0	25 October 2013

All registrations· 2 rows

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM22891	Rodenbury Investments Limited	5590 Finch Avenue East	Planning and Development Application, Minor Variance	15 March 2016 – 15 March 2017	2
SM19715	Rodenbury Investments Limited	5590 Finch Avenue East	Planning and Development Application, Minor Variance	2 October 2013 – 28 February 2014	4

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 1 June 2018Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0241/18SCApplication Withdrawn · Withdrawn

Data table· 1 row

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
A0241/18SC Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	1 June 2018	Application Withdrawn Withdrawn

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 23

3 lobbied · 32 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 23: 3 lobbied and 32 matched unlobbied applications in 3 matched strata
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	32	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.