Address · Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
1430 Birchmount Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
- Location
- 43.75251, -79.28803
- 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
2These 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· 10 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal Services | City staff | 3 | 3 | 26 January 2017 |
| Community Planning, Scarborough District | City staff | 2 | 2 | 26 January 2017 |
| Office of Councillor Michael Thompson | Councillor staff | 2 | 2 | 26 January 2017 |
| City Manager's Office | City staff | 1 | 1 | 26 January 2017 |
| Equity Diversity & Human Rights | City staff | 1 | 1 | 26 January 2017 |
| Fire Services | City staff | 1 | 1 | 26 January 2017 |
| Strategic Initiatives, Policy & Analysis | City staff | 1 | 1 | 26 January 2017 |
| Toronto Building | City staff | 1 | 1 | 26 January 2017 |
| Toronto Building, Scarborough District | City staff | 1 | 1 | 26 January 2017 |
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 26 January 2017 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM23963 | Sakinah Foundation | 1430 Birchmount Road. | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study | 26 January 2017 – 25 January 2018 | 13 |
| SM23964 | Sakinah Foundation | 1430 Birchmount Road | By-law / Regulation | 26 January 2017 – 25 January 2018 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 5 November 2025Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 25 249692 ESC 21 CDUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 10 June 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0151/24SCClosed · Approved
- Submitted 10 June 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-5454472Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 23 November 2022Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 22 232274 ESC 21 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 249692 ESC 21 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 5 November 2025 | Under Review In progress |
| A0151/24SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 10 June 2024 | Closed Approved |
| COA-5454472 Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 10 June 2024 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| 22 232274 ESC 21 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 23 November 2022 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
Linked lobbying registrations
No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.
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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 28 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 0% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 95 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.03 |
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.
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.
Minor variance (MV), Ward 21
3 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide
173 lobbied · 3,646 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 3 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 173 | 126 | 75% (n=154) | 25% | 19% | 43% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 3,646 | 114 | 91% (n=3,058) | 9% | 4% | 27% |
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 21
10 lobbied · 44 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 | 44 | 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.