Address · Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
895 Don Mills Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
- Location
- 43.72740, -79.33955
- 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· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 34 Don Valley East | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 17 March 2015 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM18548 | Fana Group of Companies | 895 Don Mills Road | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan; Planning and Development Application, Minor Varian… | 16 October 2012 – 28 February 2020 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 22 September 2025Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0027/25NYDeferred · In progress
- Submitted 16 October 2012Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 12 263710 NNY 34 SANOAC Issued · Approved
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| B0027/25NY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 22 September 2025 | Deferred In progress |
| 12 263710 NNY 34 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 16 October 2012 | NOAC Issued Approved |
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
895 Don Mills Rd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
12 263710 NNY 34 SA · submitted 16 October 2012 · NOAC Issued · from registration SM18548 (Fana Group of Companies)
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 SM18548: Site Plan and Minor Variance applications to permit the development of a new office building at 895 Don Mills Road, Toronto, ON (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 263710 NNY 34 SA at 895 Don Mills Rd: Surface parking lot - 55 cars ***DO NOT RELEASE LC UNTIL AGREEMENT IS SIGNED*** (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Site Plan and Minor Variance applications to permit the development of a new office building at 895 Don Mills Road, Toronto, ON
Matched fields
- address
- 895 DON MILLS RD
- application_address
- 895 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.
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.
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.