Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
75 Hanna Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.63998, -79.41903
- 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
1These 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· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Cressy | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 20 November 2020 |
| Ausma Malik | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 4 April 2023 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM30867 | First capital Realty | 75 Hanna Avenue | Planning and Development Application; Zoning By-law | 17 November 2020 – 31 December 2026 | 2 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 14 April 2021Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 21 140282 STE 10 SBDraft Plan Approved · Approved
- Submitted 16 December 2020Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 20 229554 STE 10 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 5 December 2018Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 18 264755 STE 10 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 140282 STE 10 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 14 April 2021 | Draft Plan Approved Approved |
| 20 229554 STE 10 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 16 December 2020 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 264755 STE 10 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 5 December 2018 | 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
61 Hanna Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
20 229554 STE 10 OZ · submitted 16 December 2020 · Closed · from registration SM30867 (First capital Realty)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.89
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 SM30867: Rezoning application on 61 Hanna Avenue, 75 Hanna Avenue & 120 Lynn Williams. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 20 229554 STE 10 OZ at 61 Hanna Ave: Application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit the development of three mixed-use buildings of 32, 33, and 36 storeys containing 11,827 square metres of non-residential uses and 963 dwelling units within two blocks at 61-85 Hanna Avenue and 120 Lynn Williams Street. At 75 Hanna Avenue (Block 1) t… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Rezoning application on 61 Hanna Avenue, 75 Hanna Avenue & 120 Lynn Williams.
Matched fields
- address
- 61 HANNA AVE
- application_address
- 61 HANNA AVE
61 Hanna Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
20 229554 STE 10 OZ · submitted 16 December 2020 · Closed · from registration SM31265 (First capital Realty)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.92
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM31265: Re-zoning application 61 -85 Hanna Avenue and 120 Lynn Williams Street Zoning Amendment Application (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 20 229554 STE 10 OZ at 61 Hanna Ave: Application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit the development of three mixed-use buildings of 32, 33, and 36 storeys containing 11,827 square metres of non-residential uses and 963 dwelling units within two blocks at 61-85 Hanna Avenue and 120 Lynn Williams Street. At 75 Hanna Avenue (Block 1) t… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Re-zoning application 61 -85 Hanna Avenue and 120 Lynn Williams Street Zoning Amendment Application
Matched fields
- address
- 61-85 HANNA AVE
- application_address
- 61 HANNA AVE
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.
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.
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
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 | 88 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 10% | 0.03 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 94 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 5% | 0.01 |
| 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.