Address · Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
78 Tisdale Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
- Location
- 43.72292, -79.30746
- 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· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 16 Don Valley East | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 19 April 2021 |
| Ward 34 Don Valley East | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 8 December 2016 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM31417 | Nascent Developments Inc. | 78 Tisdale Avenue | Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning… | 16 March 2021 – 20 October 2021 | 2 |
| SM23800 | Nascent Developments Inc. | 78 Tisdale Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Plan of … | 7 December 2016 – 4 February 2020 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
1- Submitted 1 August 2017Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 17 209538 NNY 34 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 1 row
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17 209538 NNY 34 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 1 August 2017 | 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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 16
4 lobbied · 8 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 | 4 | 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 | 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.