Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
571 Dundas St W
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.65227, -79.40044
- 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
0These 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.
None.
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
No communications recorded.
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
18- Submitted 7 January 2026Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 26 101646 STE 10 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 13 November 2024Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 24 238191 STE 10 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 15 August 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0724/24TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 30 April 2024Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 24 142257 STE 10 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 14 April 2021Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 21 140889 STE 10 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 1 September 2020Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 20 188233 STE 10 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 9 July 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 185758 STE 10 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 9 July 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 185764 STE 10 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 20 February 2019Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 19 117357 STE 10 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 20 September 2018Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0087/18TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 20 September 2018Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0101/18TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 22 December 2017Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 17 278596 STE 20 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 22 December 2017Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 17 278607 STE 20 SBDraft Plan Approved · Approved
- Submitted 25 August 2016Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 16 212969 STE 20 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 23 April 2015Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 15 145688 STE 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 5 April 2013Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 13 144963 STE 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 20 April 2012Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 12 158501 STE 20 SBClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 11 March 2011Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 11 143142 STE 20 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 18 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26 101646 STE 10 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 7 January 2026 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 24 238191 STE 10 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 13 November 2024 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0724/24TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 15 August 2024 | Closed Approved |
| 24 142257 STE 10 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 30 April 2024 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 21 140889 STE 10 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 14 April 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 20 188233 STE 10 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 1 September 2020 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 19 185758 STE 10 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 9 July 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 19 185764 STE 10 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 9 July 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 19 117357 STE 10 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 20 February 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| B0087/18TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 20 September 2018 | Closed Approved |
| B0101/18TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 20 September 2018 | Closed Approved |
| 17 278596 STE 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 22 December 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 17 278607 STE 20 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 22 December 2017 | Draft Plan Approved Approved |
| 16 212969 STE 20 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 25 August 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 15 145688 STE 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 23 April 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 13 144963 STE 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 5 April 2013 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 158501 STE 20 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 20 April 2012 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 143142 STE 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 11 March 2011 | 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
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 10
88 lobbied · 94 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 88 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 11% | 0.03 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 94 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 5% | 0.01 |
| 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.
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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 10
4 lobbied · 25 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 25 | 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 | 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.
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.
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 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Minor variance (MV), City-wide
173 lobbied · 3,646 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 | 20 | 136 | 100% (n=20) | 0% | 0% | 14% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 261 | 138 | 93% (n=214) | 7% | 5% | 18% |
| 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
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.
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL), City-wide
2 lobbied · 6 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 6 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 10
66 lobbied · 165 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 66 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 3% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 165 | 1,881 | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| 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.
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 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 2 rows
| 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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 10
1 lobbied · 8 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 8 | 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 | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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.