lobbyTO

Address · Ward 16 · Jon Burnside

905 Don Mills Rd

Registrations naming this address
8
3 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
74
18 offices contacted
Applications at this address
2
8 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
Location
43.72843, -79.34057
How this address was located
Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 907 DON MILLS RD (2 civic numbers away).

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

Registrations that mention this address

8

These 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

  • Toronto Water18
  • Toronto Water, General Manager's Office7
  • Mayor's Office7
  • Development and Growth Services6
  • Brad Bradford6
  • Engineering and Construction Services4
  • Brad Bradford4
  • North York District, Engineering and Construction3
Data table· 18 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Toronto WaterCity staff18510 December 2019
Toronto Water, General Manager's OfficeCity staff7018 March 2019
Mayor's OfficeCouncillor staff7029 May 2020
Development and Growth ServicesCity staff6029 April 2025
Brad BradfordCouncillor staff6228 January 2025
Engineering and Construction ServicesCity staff402 April 2019
Brad BradfordMember of council4228 January 2025
North York District, Engineering and ConstructionCity staff302 April 2019
Councillor Minnan-WongCouncillor staff3025 May 2020
Frances NunziataCouncillor staff3214 April 2025
Development & Growth ServicesCity staff2212 May 2025
North York District, Enginering and ConstructionCity staff202 April 2019
Frances NunziataMember of council2214 April 2025
Jon BurnsideCouncillor staff229 April 2025
Jon BurnsideMember of council229 April 2025
Deputy City Manager's OfficeCity staff1015 January 2019
Ward 34 Don Valley EastMember of council1023 April 2018
Vincent CrisantiMember of council1022 July 2025
All registrations· 8 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM36807Verve Senior Living905 Don Mills RdPlanning and Development; Seniors21 July 2025 – 2 March 20271
SM36531Verve Senior Living905 Don Mills RoadPlanning and Development; Seniors11 April 2025 – 19 December 20257
SM36516Verve Senior Living905 Don Mills RoadPlanning and Development; Seniors9 April 2025 – 19 December 20265
SM36287Verve Senior Living905 Don Mills RoadSeniors24 January 2025 – 31 December 202610
SM27896DCMS Realty Developments Inc.905 Don Mills RoadPlanning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Pla…19 March 2019 – 31 December 20207
SM27084DCMS Realty Developments Inc.905 Don Mills RoadPlanning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Pla…26 November 2018 – 26 March 202534
SM27091DCMS Realty Developments Inc.905 Don Mills RoadPlanning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Pla…26 November 2018 – 6 July 20229
SM26111DCMS Realty905 Don Mills RoadPlanning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B…23 April 2018 – 25 October 20181

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

2
Data table· 2 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
18 193782 NNY 34 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)13 July 2018Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
16 269987 NNY 34 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)22 December 2016Closed
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

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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 16

10 lobbied · 23 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 16: 10 lobbied and 23 matched unlobbied applications in 8 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied10Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied23Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—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 16

4 lobbied · 8 matched

Hidden: 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 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=78
  • Matched, unlobbied96% n=78

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied14%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 16: 4 lobbied and 8 matched unlobbied applications in 4 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied4Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied8Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied571—100% (n=78)0%12%0.08
Matched, unlobbied760—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.