Address · Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
844 Don Mills Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
- Location
- 43.72264, -79.34167
- 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
6These 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 26 Don Valley West | Member of council | 13 | 8 | 6 June 2018 |
| Ward 24 Willowdale | Member of council | 10 | 3 | 20 September 2018 |
| Councillor Burnside Office | Councillor staff | 7 | 0 | 21 August 2018 |
| Ward 16 Don Valley East | Member of council | 6 | 5 | 9 July 2020 |
| Deputy Mayor Denzil Minnan Wong | Councillor staff | 4 | 0 | 13 July 2020 |
| Ward 25 Don Valley West | Member of council | 3 | 3 | 6 December 2016 |
| Jon Burnside | Member of council | 3 | 3 | 21 June 2023 |
| Mayor | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 10 April 2018 |
| Ward 34 Don Valley East | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 19 July 2017 |
| Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 23 February 2021 |
| Office of Councillor | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 9 January 2017 |
All registrations· 6 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM34566 | Don Mills (ARH) Homes Ltd. | 844 Don Mills Road | Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Plan of Subdivision; Planning and D… | 15 June 2023 – 31 December 2025 | 2 |
| SM27646 | Aspen Ridge Homes | 844 Don Mills Rd. | Planning and Development, Heritage; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning a… | 14 February 2019 – 31 December 2023 | 2 |
| SM24272 | Diamondcorp | 844 Don Mills Road | Planning and Development, Heritage; Planning and Development, Combined Application | 27 March 2017 – 20 July 2026 | 36 |
| SM22668 | Whitecastle New Urban Fund 3 | 844 Don Mills Road | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 15 January 2016 – 15 January 2018 | 4 |
| SM21669 | Diamondcorp | 844 Don Mills Road | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B… | 14 April 2015 – 30 December 2016 | 1 |
| SM21606 | Diamondcorp | 844 Don Mills Road | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 29 March 2015 – 7 May 2017 | 7 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
17- Submitted 17 June 2026Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0249/26NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 24 November 2025Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 25 257728 NNY 16 PLApproved · Approved
- Submitted 24 November 2025Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 25 257737 NNY 16 CDDraft Plan Approved · Approved
- Submitted 17 November 2025Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0032/25NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 7 August 2025Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 25 206673 NNY 16 OZUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 25 June 2025Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 25 183450 NNY 16 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 27 May 2025Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 25 165819 NNY 16 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 1 December 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 243786 NNY 16 SANOAC Issued · Approved
- Submitted 7 July 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0486/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 1 March 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0141/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 22 February 2021Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0010/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 22 February 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-4883140Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 19 December 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 263245 NNY 16 SAFinal Approval Completed · Approved
- Submitted 16 August 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 206988 NNY 16 SANOAC Issued · Approved
- Submitted 12 October 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 236387 NNY 26 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 12 October 2016Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 16 236405 NNY 26 SBFinal Approval Completed · Approved
- Submitted 8 May 2014Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 14 153614 NNY 26 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 17 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0249/26NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 17 June 2026 | Closed Approved |
| 25 257728 NNY 16 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 24 November 2025 | Approved Approved |
| 25 257737 NNY 16 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 24 November 2025 | Draft Plan Approved Approved |
| B0032/25NY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 17 November 2025 | Closed Approved |
| 25 206673 NNY 16 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 7 August 2025 | Under Review In progress |
| 25 183450 NNY 16 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 25 June 2025 | Under Review In progress |
| 25 165819 NNY 16 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 27 May 2025 | Under Review In progress |
| 21 243786 NNY 16 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 1 December 2021 | NOAC Issued Approved |
| A0486/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 7 July 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0141/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 1 March 2021 | Closed Approved |
| B0010/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 22 February 2021 | Closed Approved |
| COA-4883140 Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 22 February 2021 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| 19 263245 NNY 16 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 19 December 2019 | Final Approval Completed Approved |
| 19 206988 NNY 16 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 16 August 2019 | NOAC Issued Approved |
| 16 236387 NNY 26 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 12 October 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 236405 NNY 26 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 12 October 2016 | Final Approval Completed Approved |
| 14 153614 NNY 26 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 8 May 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
844 Don Mills Rd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
21 243786 NNY 16 SA · submitted 1 December 2021 · NOAC Issued · from registration SM27646 (Aspen Ridge Homes)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.74
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 SM27646: RE the development of 1150 Eglinton Ave. East and 844 Don Mills Rd. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 21 243786 NNY 16 SA at 844 Don Mills Rd: This is an application for Site Plan Control on Block 8 of the Crosstown (Celestica) development. The application proposes ten 3-storey townhouse blocks consisting of 8 units each, for a total of 80 residential dwelling units. The proposed residential gross floor area is 14,960.40 square metres. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: RE the development of 1150 Eglinton Ave. East and 844 Don Mills Rd.
Matched fields
- address
- 1150 EGLINTON AVE E
- application_address
- 1150 EGLINTON AVE E
844 Don Mills Rd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
19 263245 NNY 16 SA · submitted 19 December 2019 · Final Approval Completed · from registration SM27646 (Aspen Ridge Homes)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.82
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 SM27646: RE the development of 1150 Eglinton Ave. East and 844 Don Mills Rd. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 19 263245 NNY 16 SA at 844 Don Mills Rd: This is an application for Site Plan Control on Block 5A of the Crosstown (Celestica) development. The application proposes a 27 storey mixed use building, accommodating affordable rental apartments, a long-term care facility, a daycare, and retail uses. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: RE the development of 1150 Eglinton Ave. East and 844 Don Mills Rd.
Matched fields
- address
- 1150 EGLINTON AVE E
- application_address
- 1150 EGLINTON AVE E
844 Don Mills Rd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
19 206988 NNY 16 SA · submitted 16 August 2019 · NOAC Issued · from registration SM27646 (Aspen Ridge Homes)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.85
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 SM27646: RE the development of 1150 Eglinton Ave. East and 844 Don Mills Rd. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 19 206988 NNY 16 SA at 844 Don Mills Rd: This is the first application (Blocks 1A & 1B) for Site Plan Control related to the redevelopment of the former Celestica lands, now known as Crosstown. This application proposes the construction of a nine storey office building having a daycare, retail uses at-grade, and a connection to the future… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: RE the development of 1150 Eglinton Ave. East and 844 Don Mills Rd.
- particulars: RE the development of 1150 Eglinton Ave. East and 844 Don Mills Rd.
Matched fields
- address
- 844 DON MILLS RD
- application_address
- 844 DON MILLS RD
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 16
5 lobbied · 35 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 | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 35 | 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.
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL), City-wide
2 lobbied · 6 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 6 | 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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 2 rows
| 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.
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.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 26 | 184 | 79% (n=24) | 21% | 15% | 25% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 179 | 115 | 88% (n=133) | 12% | 3% | 25% |
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.
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
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval 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 | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (n=70) | 2% | 13% | 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 16
10 lobbied · 23 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 10 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 23 | 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=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 16
2 lobbied · 4 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 | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 4 | 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.