Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously approved the City’s position to approve a four-year extension of its lease to Nimalan Masilamany. The lease covers a property at 7255 rue Saint-Urbain in the borough of Villeray–Saint-Michel–Parc-Extension, for an auto repair shop, from December 1, 2026, to November 30, 2030. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The extension would keep the existing tenant in the roughly 206-square-metre building, on a 334.4-square-metre site.
- The rent would total $94,200.36, excluding taxes, with an annual increase of about 3%.
- The tenant would remain responsible for operating costs, property taxes, and repairs and other work, including major work on the building and its systems.
- Either party could end the lease early with at least six months’ written notice, with no compensation or indemnity to either party.
What it means for you#
- Tenant: The proposed extension would let Nimalan Masilamany continue operating the auto repair shop under the lease terms. The tenant would pay the rent, applicable taxes, and the listed property costs.
- City: The lease would continue an existing rental arrangement. The City bought the property in 2020 for possible redevelopment, including a stated purpose of social and community housing.
- General public: The decision does not change public rights or services directly. City staff say no redevelopment is planned in the short or medium term.
Money#
The City expects $94,200.36 in rent over four years, excluding taxes.
- The rent revenue would go to the operating budget of the Service de la stratégie immobilière et de l’habitation.
- The tenant is responsible for operating costs, property taxes, and repairs and work on the building.
- Staff say not extending the lease would leave the City responsible for upkeep, operating, and security costs until redevelopment or another change in use; no amount for those costs is provided.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not give a timetable for redevelopment or explain what will happen to the property after the extended lease ends.
- They do not compare the rent with other possible rental terms or provide an estimate of the City’s costs if the property is vacant.
Case for#
- City staff say the property is not needed for municipal purposes now and has no short- or medium-term redevelopment plan.
- The lease would bring in rent while leaving operating and property costs with the tenant.
- The six-month termination option gives either party a way to end the lease early.
Case against#
- The City bought the property for possible redevelopment, including social and community housing. Extending the commercial use could delay a future project, although staff say none is planned in the short or medium term.
- The materials do not show whether the rent is the best available return for the property or quantify the costs the City expects to avoid.