Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik

723 Queen St W

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 1; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 2; 1 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 10 · Ausma Malik
Location: 43.64652, -79.40628
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

The Salvation Army - Florence Booth HouseSM18905 · 5 February 20132

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina2

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina	Member of council	2	2	16 April 2013

All registrations· 1 row

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM18905	The Salvation Army - Florence Booth House	723 Queen St. West.	Affordable Housing; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Shelters	5 February 2013 – 22 September 2014	2

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 29 December 2022Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 22 243075 STE 10 SANOAC Issued · Approved
Submitted 27 May 2020Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0449/20TEYClosed · Approved

Data table· 2 rows

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
22 243075 STE 10 SA Development application	Site Plan Approval (SA)	29 December 2022	NOAC Issued Approved
A0449/20TEY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	27 May 2020	Closed 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

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 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied1,881

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 · 1,237 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 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	1,881	100% (n=11)	0%	2%	0.04

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.

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

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.

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