lobbyTO

Address · Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo

980 Dufferin St

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page
Registrations naming this address
8
6 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
68
12 offices contacted
Applications at this address
5
10 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Location
43.65883, -79.43545
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

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

  • Alejandra Bravo36
  • Development Review12
  • Toronto Water4
  • Development and Growth Services3
  • Ward 9 Davenport3
  • Corporate Real Estate Management2
  • Office of the DCM, Development & Growth Services2
  • Toronto Building2
Data table· 12 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Alejandra BravoMember of council361431 July 2026
Development ReviewCity staff1249 March 2026
Toronto WaterCity staff404 October 2024
Development and Growth ServicesCity staff3020 August 2024
Ward 9 DavenportMember of council3126 January 2021
Corporate Real Estate ManagementCity staff2023 February 2026
Office of the DCM, Development & Growth ServicesCity staff2013 August 2024
Toronto BuildingCity staff2029 January 2025
Development Review DivisionCity staff1015 August 2024
Office of the DCM, Infrastructure & DevelopmentCity staff108 August 2024
Office of Ana BailaoCouncillor staff1031 March 2022
Ward 18 DavenportMember of council111 February 2017
All registrations· 8 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM35832Fitzrovia980 Dufferin StreetPlanning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Develop…8 August 2024 – 7 April 202612
SM35795Fitzrovia980 Dufferin StreetPlanning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Develop…29 July 2024 – 29 July 202713
SM35427Fitzrovia Residential Inc.980 Dufferin StreetAffordable Housing; Planning and Development, Combined Application8 March 2024 – 31 December 202638
SM33120Hazelview980 Dufferin StreetPlanning and Development30 March 2022 – 30 March 20230
SM33121Hazelview980 Dufferin StreetPlanning and Development Application; Plan of Subdivision30 March 2022 – 7 October 20221
SM30257Capital Developments980 Dufferin StreetAffordable Housing; Planning and Development23 June 2020 – 31 December 20210
SM29116Bloor Dufferin Development Limited Partnership980 Dufferin StreetPlanning and Development, Combined Application4 November 2019 – 27 July 20213
SM23985Metropia980 Dufferin St.Affordable Housing1 February 2017 – 8 February 20171

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

5
Data table· 5 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
22 129491 STE 09 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)1 April 2022NOAC Issued
Approved
22 129524 STE 09 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)1 April 2022NOAC Issued
Approved
18 149098 STE 18 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)26 April 2018Under Review
In progress
17 237256 STE 18 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)22 September 2017Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
17 237276 STE 18 SB
Development application
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)22 September 2017Under Review
In progress

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 9

20 lobbied · 21 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=4
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=5

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

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 9: 20 lobbied and 21 matched unlobbied applications in 12 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied20—100% (n=4)0%0%0.05
Matched, unlobbied21—100% (n=5)0%0%0.10
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 9

19 lobbied · 28 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 9: 19 lobbied and 28 matched unlobbied applications in 16 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied19Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied28Hidden: 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.

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 9

1 lobbied · 3 matched

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

Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide

16 lobbied · 48 matched

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

Data table· 4 rows
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 9: 1 lobbied and 3 matched unlobbied applications in 1 matched stratum
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied1Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied3Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide: 16 lobbied and 48 matched unlobbied applications in 15 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied16Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied48Hidden: 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.