lobbyTO

Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)

Development application 25 232204 ESC 24 OZ

60 Guildwood Pkwy

Status
Council Approved
Approved
Submitted
29 September 2025
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
8
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
16
3 meetings · 3 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
60 Guildwood Pkwy
Ward
Ward 24 · Paul Ainslie
Submitted
29 September 2025
Status
Council Approved
Outcome recorded
Approved
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
28,612 m² gross floor area

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

Description

OPA & Rezoning Application proposes the development of a 9-storey Long Term Care Facility. The building will provide a total of 512 LTC Resident Rooms, being a mix of private and semi-private. A paved access from Guildwood Parkway will be provided, leading to pick-up/drop-off area and surface parking, providing a total of 145 parking spaces; as well as 88 bicycle parking spaces. The proposed development provides a total GFA of 28,612 square metres and a FSI of 0.94. Additionally, the proposed development provides indoor and outdoor amenity space.

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

8 linked registrations · 16 communications · 3 meetings · 3 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 4 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Jamaal MyersCouncillor staff7228 July 2026
Olivia ChowCouncillor staff5029 July 2026
Paul AinslieCouncillor staff3023 July 2026
Paul AinslieMember of council1112 February 2026

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.

None.

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.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 24

8 lobbied · 7 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 24: 8 lobbied and 7 matched unlobbied applications in 5 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied8Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied7Hidden: 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.