Summary#
On 15 December 2025, Montréal city council unanimously approved an addendum to the service agreement between the City and Tennis Canada - Stade Jarry. The goal, according to city staff, is to clarify expectations for handling personal information in light of new provisions of Loi 25.
- The addendum concerns the existing agreement for Tennis Canada - Stade Jarry to provide Montréal residents priority access to indoor and outdoor courts at the Centre de tennis du parc Jarry.
- The agreement covers the period from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2032. The decision does not state that it changes the court-access arrangement.
- The addendum relates to personal information collected on the City's behalf. The supplied material does not include its text, so the specific new duties are not clear.
What it means for you#
- Tennis Canada - Stade Jarry and the City: The approved addendum changes their service agreement, but the materials do not show the exact terms or when they take effect.
- People whose information is handled: The decision concerns personal information, but does not say what information is collected or how the addendum changes its handling.
- People using the tennis centre: The existing priority-access arrangement is described in the materials; this decision does not state that access or eligibility changes.
Money#
City staff list no financial impact for the addendum.
- The existing service agreement has a maximum authorized expense of $22,156,180, taxes included, and a recurring annual budget adjustment of $277,737.08, net of tax rebates, from 2023 through 2032. These are existing agreement amounts, not new spending stated for this decision.
- The materials give no estimate for any staff or administrative work related to the addendum.
What is unclear#
- The addendum itself is not included, so its specific duties, limits, and enforcement terms cannot be verified.
- The materials do not state when the addendum takes effect or how compliance will be checked.
- City staff's schedule lists sending new specifications in autumn 2025 and reporting in autumn 2026; the materials do not say whether those steps have happened or what the report will cover.
Case for#
- City staff say the existing contract did not clearly set out expectations for contractors handling personal information for the City. Clarifying them in the agreement could make those expectations explicit.
- The decision connects the addendum to new privacy-law requirements. Updating the contract may help document what the City expects of its contractor.
Case against#
- The addendum's text is missing from the materials, so residents cannot assess the exact protections or duties the decision approves.
- The City reports no financial impact, but provides no estimate of the administrative work needed to carry out or check the new requirements.