Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik

57 Spadina Ave

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 2; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 8; 1 offices contacted
Applications at this address: 5; No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items: 0; Items naming this address

About this address

Ward: Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Location: 43.64496, -79.39447
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

Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2SM19326 · 17 May 20135
Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2SM18276 · 18 July 20123

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina8

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina	Member of council	8	8	8 December 2014

All registrations· 2 rows

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM19326	Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2	57 Spadina Avenue	Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law	17 May 2013 – 20 May 2016	5
SM18276	Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2	57 Spadina Avenue	Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law	18 July 2012 – 15 July 2016	3

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 29 May 2025Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0393/25TEYApproved with Conditions · Approved
Submitted 6 March 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0266/23TEYClosed · Approved
Submitted 17 August 2017Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0908/17TEYClosed · Approved
Submitted 10 November 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 249867 STE 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted 15 May 2013Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 13 169365 STE 20 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)

Data table· 5 rows

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
A0393/25TEY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	29 May 2025	Approved with Conditions Approved
A0266/23TEY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	6 March 2023	Closed Approved
A0908/17TEY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	17 August 2017	Closed Approved
16 249867 STE 20 SA Development application	Site Plan Approval (SA)	10 November 2016	Closed Closed (outcome not recorded)
13 169365 STE 20 OZ Development application	Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)	15 May 2013	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 10

20 lobbied · 261 matched

Median days

Lobbied136
Matched, unlobbied138

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=20
Matched, unlobbied93% n=214

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied7%

Appeal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied5%

Objection rate

Lobbied14%
Matched, unlobbied18%

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 10: 20 lobbied and 261 matched unlobbied applications in 8 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	20	136	100% (n=20)	0%	0%	14%
Matched, unlobbied	261	138	93% (n=214)	7%	5%	18%

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

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 10

66 lobbied · 165 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=5
Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied3%
Matched, unlobbied2%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=63
Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Data table· 4 rows

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	66	—	100% (n=5)	0%	3%	0.05
Matched, unlobbied	165	—	100% (n=11)	0%	2%	0.04

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	449	—	100% (n=63)	0%	4%	0.07
Matched, unlobbied	1,236	—	97% (n=98)	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.

Development applications

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 10

88 lobbied · 94 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=7
Matched, unlobbied100% n=7

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied10%
Matched, unlobbied5%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

571 lobbied · 760 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=78
Matched, unlobbied96% n=78

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied4%

Appeal rate

Lobbied12%
Matched, unlobbied14%

Data table· 4 rows

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 10: 88 lobbied and 94 matched unlobbied applications in 38 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	88	—	100% (n=7)	0%	10%	0.03
Matched, unlobbied	94	—	100% (n=7)	0%	5%	0.01

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	571	—	100% (n=78)	0%	12%	0.08
Matched, unlobbied	760	—	96% (n=78)	4%	14%	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.

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