Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
767 Yonge St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Location
- 43.67111, -79.38685
- 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
3These 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· 15 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of the Mayor | Councillor staff | 9 | 5 | 26 August 2021 |
| Mayor John Tory | Councillor staff | 8 | 2 | 25 March 2022 |
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 8 | 8 | 11 August 2017 |
| CreateTO | Local board | 8 | 4 | 8 March 2022 |
| TTC | Local board | 5 | 5 | 8 March 2022 |
| Corporate Services | City staff | 4 | 1 | 10 September 2021 |
| Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 4 | 2 | 22 March 2017 |
| Corporate Real Estate Management | City staff | 3 | 3 | 8 March 2022 |
| Councillor Mike Layton | Councillor staff | 3 | 0 | 6 October 2020 |
| Councillor Wong-Tam | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 23 February 2018 |
| City-Wide Real Estate Program | City staff | 1 | 1 | 22 November 2017 |
| Councillor Colle | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 22 November 2017 |
| Build Toronto | Local board | 1 | 1 | 22 November 2017 |
| Ward 11 University-Rosedale | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 6 October 2020 |
| Ward 15 Eglinton-Lawrence | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 22 November 2017 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM25509 | Brookfield Office Properties Management LP | 767 Yonge Street | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study; Transit / TTC | 11 January 2018 – 23 March 2018 | 1 |
| SM25316 | Brookfield Office Properties Management LP | 767 Yonge Street | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study | 15 November 2017 – 14 November 2026 | 46 |
| SM23572 | Brookfield Properties Canada Management LP | 767 Yonge Street | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study | 29 September 2016 – 31 December 2019 | 12 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 19 October 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 227654 STE 11 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 27 December 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 265064 STE 11 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 19 February 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 118667 STE 27 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 227654 STE 11 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 19 October 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 19 265064 STE 11 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 27 December 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 118667 STE 27 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 19 February 2016 | 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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 11
4 lobbied · 10 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 | 10 | 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.
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 11
46 lobbied · 113 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 46 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 9% | 0.09 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 113 | — | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.02 |
| 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.
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 11
69 lobbied · 60 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 | 69 | — | 100% (n=10) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 11% | 0.03 |
| 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.