Address · Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
756 Warden Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
- Location
- 43.72019, -79.28479
- 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
2These 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· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frances Nunziata | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 8 August 2024 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM35634 | Dolphin Gaming | 756 Warden Avenue | Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development Application, Minor Variance | 27 May 2024 – 20 December 2024 | 1 |
| SM22311 | Pantheon Group | 756 Warden Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 7 October 2015 – 7 October 2016 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
8- Submitted 2 June 2026Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0082/26SCApproved · Approved
- Submitted 19 November 2024Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 24 240873 ESC 20 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 6 February 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-5394208Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 5 September 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0206/23SCClosed · Refused
- Submitted 28 November 2022Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0269/22SCClosed · Approved
- Submitted 12 August 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 197589 ESC 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 16 March 2018Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 18 130567 ESC 35 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 16 March 2018Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0080/18SCApplication Withdrawn · Withdrawn
Data table· 8 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0082/26SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 2 June 2026 | Approved Approved |
| 24 240873 ESC 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 19 November 2024 | Under Review In progress |
| COA-5394208 Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 6 February 2024 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| A0206/23SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 5 September 2023 | Closed Refused |
| A0269/22SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 28 November 2022 | Closed Approved |
| 21 197589 ESC 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 12 August 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 130567 ESC 35 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 16 March 2018 | Under Review In progress |
| A0080/18SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 16 March 2018 | Application Withdrawn Withdrawn |
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
756 Warden Ave · Minor variance (MV)
A0206/23SC · submitted 5 September 2023 · Closed · from registration SM35634 (Dolphin Gaming)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.86
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 SM35634: Minor Variance - 756 Warden Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0206/23SC at 756 Warden Ave: To construct a new building with Electronic Gaming and Bingo Hall uses on the site. A previous minor variance application was approved to construct a new one storey industrial condominium (A0269/22SC). Cross reference related Site Plan Application File No. 2021 197589 ESC 20 SA. This application wa… (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Minor Variance - 756 Warden Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 756 WARDEN AVE
- application_address
- 756 WARDEN AVE
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 20
9 lobbied · 295 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 9 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 295 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 20
11 lobbied · 34 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 | 11 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 34 | 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.