City extends due diligence on land sale

Summary#

Montréal city council adopted its position to approve a second addendum to the promise to sell the Îlot Voyageur Sud property at 505 boulevard De Maisonneuve Est, in Ville-Marie. The sale price and other terms are not changed by the addendum; the stated goal is to give the buyers more time for due diligence. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.

  • The proposed addendum would extend the buyers’ due-diligence period by six months. City staff say it would run to June 25, 2026.
  • The buyers are 9536-1135 Québec inc. and Utile Développement.
  • The sale remains for $20,000,000, payable with interest, plus applicable taxes. City staff say all other terms of the promise remain the same.

What it means for you#

  • Buyers: If the addendum is approved, they get more time to examine the property and complete required surveys and environmental work. The staff summary says the sale is for a mixed residential project.
  • City and taxpayers: The addendum does not itself transfer the property or change the sale price. It extends the time for the buyers’ review.
  • Residents: The decision does not create a new public service or change residents’ rights or duties.

Money#

City staff say the addendum has no financial impact; no separate cost estimate is provided.

  • The sale price remains $20,000,000, payable with interest, plus applicable taxes.
  • The staff summary says the buyers must pay for their due-diligence work.

What is unclear#

  • The resolution approves the city’s position on the addendum but does not itself state the extension’s length or end date. The staff summary gives conflicting dates: it says June 25, 2026 in some places, but June 25, 2025 in another.
  • The staff summary also gives inconsistent dates for the original promise. The exact dates and terms in the addendum are not included in the supplied material.

Case for#

  • City staff say the buyers need more time because the City lacks an up-to-date location certificate, STM installation plans are outdated, and environmental drilling requires STM authorization.
  • Staff say refusing the extension could lead the buyers to withdraw, putting the planned sale at risk.

Case against#

  • The extension gives the buyers more time while the sale remains incomplete; the materials do not explain what happens if due diligence raises concerns.
  • The conflicting dates in the staff summary make the extension’s exact end date unclear.