Address · Ward 6 · James Pasternak
75 Billy Bishop Way
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 6 · James Pasternak
- Location
- 43.73326, -79.45095
- 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
5These 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
Data table· 11 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| James Pasternak | Councillor staff | 23 | 3 | 25 June 2026 |
| Development Review | City staff | 16 | 7 | 15 January 2026 |
| Brad Bradford | Councillor staff | 8 | 2 | 4 June 2024 |
| Toronto Transit Commission | Local board | 6 | 0 | 29 January 2025 |
| James Pasternak | Member of council | 5 | 4 | 5 May 2025 |
| Brad Bradford | Member of council | 3 | 2 | 4 June 2024 |
| Jamaal Myers | Councillor staff | 3 | 2 | 23 January 2025 |
| City Planning | City staff | 2 | 2 | 15 January 2026 |
| Parks & Recreation | City staff | 2 | 2 | 15 January 2026 |
| Transportation Services | City staff | 2 | 2 | 15 January 2026 |
| Legal Services | City staff | 1 | 1 | 10 December 2025 |
All registrations· 5 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM37304 | Colliers/ Manulife | 75 Billy Bishop Way | Affordable Housing; Planning and Development; Planning and Development, Heritage | 2 February 2026 – 2 December 2026 | 0 |
| SM36594 | Manulife Canadian Property Portfolio | 75 Billy Bishop Way | Planning and Development Application | 29 April 2025 – 31 December 2025 | 1 |
| SM35656 | Manulife Canadian Property Portfolio | 75 Billy Bishop Way | Affordable Housing; Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development Application, Zon… | 4 June 2024 – 31 May 2027 | 3 |
| SM34817 | Manulife Canadian Property Portfolio | 75 Billy Bishop Way | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study; Planning and Development Application; Planning a… | 18 September 2023 – 31 December 2026 | 67 |
| SM32403 | Manulife Canadian Property Portfolio | 75 Billy Bishop Way | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Pla… | 6 October 2021 – 6 October 2022 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 6 March 2025Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 25 125641 NNY 06 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
- Submitted 9 October 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 235303 NNY 09 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 125641 NNY 06 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 6 March 2025 | OMB Appeal In progress |
| 14 235303 NNY 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 9 October 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
Linked lobbying registrations
These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.
Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored
75 Billy Bishop Way · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
25 125641 NNY 06 OZ · submitted 6 March 2025 · OMB Appeal · from registration SM36594 (Manulife Canadian Property Portfolio)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.80
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM36594: Approval of proposed multi-use, mixed-use development located at 75 Billy Bishop Way, Toronto, Ontario. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 25 125641 NNY 06 OZ at 75 Billy Bishop Way: A request to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to facilitate a mixed use development at 75-81 Billy Bishop Way (the "subject lands"). The proposal seeks to permit 5 towers, ranging in height from 21 to 49 storeys and containing 2,055 dwelling units on the subject lands. A total of 151,655 s… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Approval of proposed multi-use, mixed-use development located at 75 Billy Bishop Way, Toronto, Ontario.
Matched fields
- address
- 75 BILLY BISHOP WAY
- application_address
- 75 BILLY BISHOP WAY
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 6
13 lobbied · 16 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
571 lobbied · 760 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 13 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 16 | 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 | 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.
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 6
17 lobbied · 41 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 17 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 41 | 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 | 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.
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.