City funds domestic violence unit

Summary#

Montréal city council unanimously adopted a position supporting a two-year renewal of funding for the SPVM’s specialized domestic-violence section, and the continued temporary authorization of seven police posts and one civilian post. The decision is an orientation for the agglomeration council, which makes the final decision at a later meeting. City staff say the goal is to strengthen the section’s work on high-risk cases and develop three additional initiatives.

  • The proposed provincial grant is a maximum of $2,436,490 for financial years 2026–2027 and 2027–2028.
  • The section would continue with 13 staff: 12 police employees and one civilian employee. Five police employees are funded through the SPVM’s existing base budget; the decision would maintain the temporary authorization for seven police posts and one civilian post.
  • The SPVM would adapt its practices to new legal requirements, create a voluntary referral process to outside specialized services, and assess whether preventive work with some youth aged 12 to 17 is feasible.
  • The SPVM director would be authorized to sign a funding agreement setting out administrative and financial details.

What it means for you#

  • People affected by domestic violence: City staff say the section would continue specialized work on complex or high-risk cases. The decision does not guarantee a particular service or outcome for any person.
  • Youth aged 12 to 17: The section would assess the feasibility of preventive intervention in some sexual-assault situations connected to domestic violence where no criminal charges were laid. The decision does not itself create that intervention.
  • Taxpayers in the Montréal agglomeration: The agglomeration would bear the expense because the decision concerns public safety, an agglomeration responsibility. Part of the costs would be covered by the province; the city’s remaining share is not fully budgeted.
  • SPVM: It would maintain the temporary authorization for eight posts in total, while continuing to fund five other police employees from its existing base budget.

Money#

The proposed provincial grant is capped at $2,436,490; the decision’s stated 2026 additional budget is $893,480, but the staff financial table gives a different figure.

  • The staff table estimates total costs of $4,872,980 for the two years. It lists provincial funding of $2,436,490, $1,764,800 from the SPVM’s base budget, and a remaining city-funded amount of $671,690.
  • City staff say the $671,690 is not included in the SPVM’s operating budget and would have to be covered from the service’s budget; its impact is to be presented in budget updates.
  • The decision also authorizes an adjustment to the base budget for later years. No amount for that adjustment is stated in the resolution.

What is unclear#

  • The resolution gives the 2026 additional budget as $893,480, while the staff table says $893,840. The resolution is the council’s decision, but the materials do not explain the difference.
  • The funding agreement will set administrative and financial details, but those details are not included here.
  • The decision does not set out eligibility, referral procedures, timelines, or how people can access the section or the proposed voluntary referrals.
  • The decision does not state how the $671,690 shortfall will be covered in practice.

Case for#

  • City staff say the section handles complex cases and cases assessed as high risk. Continuing specialized staff could support focused work on those cases.
  • The grant would cover half of the total estimated costs, while the SPVM’s base budget would fund five police employees.
  • The proposed initiatives address police practices, referrals to outside services, and whether preventive work with some youth is feasible.

Case against#

  • The province’s grant would cover only half of estimated costs; the materials identify a further $671,690 that is not in the SPVM’s operating budget.
  • The decision maintains temporary staffing authorizations, but does not explain what happens to those posts after the funding period ends.
  • The youth initiative is only a feasibility analysis, and the referral process is described broadly; the decision does not specify what services or safeguards would result.