lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 25 186189 STE 09 SA

450 Dufferin St

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
30 June 2025
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
82
10 meetings · 9 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
450 Dufferin St
Ward
Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Submitted
30 June 2025
Status
Under Review
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
176 units
Related file
22 236510 STE 09 OZ

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page

Description

Proposed 18-storey mixed-use purpose-built rental building with 364 sqm of non-residental GFA, and 176 units including 6 affordable rental units.Refer to Minor Variance A0835/25TEY, approved February 11, 2026.

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

Lobbying on linked registrations

2 linked registrations · 82 communications · 10 meetings · 9 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 11 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Olivia ChowCouncillor staff22319 May 2026
Alejandra BravoCouncillor staff21210 April 2026
Development Review DivisionCity staff13214 August 2025
Development ReviewCity staff1104 March 2025
Economic Development and CultureCity staff607 October 2024
Development Review DivisonCity staff308 August 2025
Alejandra BravoMember of council2115 January 2025
Development and Growth ServicesCity staff1015 January 2025
Dianne SaxeCouncillor staff1128 March 2023
Dianne SaxeMember of council1128 March 2023
Mike ColleCouncillor staff105 October 2023

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

Comparison with similar 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.