City settles lawsuit for $1 million

Summary#

Montréal city council unanimously set its position in favour of settling Rosemary Lafrenière’s lawsuit over three vacant lots, now owned by the City. The proposed settlement is $1,000,000 in total, including a payment already made, and would also set the date of possession to October 28, 2022, only to adjust property taxes. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.

  • The settlement requires a full and final release, on terms approved by the City’s legal affairs department, and makes no admission of liability.
  • The City has already paid $367,556.84. The settlement would authorize the remaining $632,443.16 to be paid to Ms. Lafrenière or into her lawyers’ trust account.
  • The City would treat October 28, 2022, as the possession date solely for adjusting property taxes. City staff estimate this would result in a refund of less than $200.
  • The three lots were sold to the City in 2025. The remaining lawsuit dispute concerned their market value and property taxes.

What it means for you#

  • Taxpayers: The settlement would use public funds to pay a total of $1,000,000, including the amount already paid. It would resolve the dispute without a trial, if the required release is signed.
  • City: Its finance department would issue the additional payment, and its legal affairs department could sign documents to complete the settlement.
  • Ms. Lafrenière: She would receive the settlement amount, subject to signing a full and final release. After signing, she could also recover $13,678.31 plus interest held in her lawyers’ trust account. The tax adjustment would provide a refund of less than $200, according to city staff.

Money#

The settlement totals $1,000,000; the City has paid $367,556.84 and would pay another $632,443.16.

  • The resolution says the total includes capital, interest, additional indemnity and costs.
  • The additional payment is to be funded through the agglomeration borrowing bylaw RCG20-007 and the City’s natural-environment land acquisition program.
  • City staff say the tax adjustment would produce a refund of less than $200. The materials do not estimate the trial costs the City might avoid.

What is unclear#

  • The agglomeration council has not yet made the final decision in the materials provided.
  • The precise terms of the full and final release are not included; they are subject to approval by the City’s legal affairs department.
  • The materials do not give a breakdown of the $1,000,000 among market value, interest, additional indemnity and costs.

Case for#

  • City staff say a settlement avoids the costs and risks of a trial.
  • The parties’ expert estimates differed substantially: $326,300 in the City’s report and $1,296,000 in Ms. Lafrenière’s report. A negotiated settlement avoids leaving the dispute over value to a court.
  • The settlement would also resolve the property-tax issue through an agreed possession date.

Case against#

  • One concern is the size of the public payment: $1,000,000 in total, even though the City’s expert valued the lots at $326,300. The settlement total also includes interest, additional indemnity and costs, so the figures are not directly comparable.
  • The materials do not show how the parties arrived at the settlement amount or estimate the cost of continuing to trial.