Bill 22 amends Québec municipal statutes to broaden when and how municipalities can intervene in real property matters. It creates a court route for municipalities to be declared owner of tax‑delinquent, ownerless immovables, expands the ability to acquire or build property for leasing to specified public and non‑profit users, and permits the gratuitous transfer of low‑value parcels to owners of adjacent land.
The bill also adds energy efficiency as an express subject for municipal building by‑laws and removes certain tax exemptions that applied to rectories.
These are practical changes for municipal asset management and neighbourhood rehabilitation: municipalities gain clearer legal authority to take control of long‑neglected lots, to provide premises to childcare centres and non‑profits, and to simplify small land transfers. At the same time the bill shifts transparency and fiscal rules (publication thresholds, loan approval thresholds, reserve rules) and alters who bears tax relief — outcomes that municipal lawyers, planners, and finance officers should evaluate against process, compensation obligations and provincial regulatory frameworks.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes municipalities to apply to Superior Court to be declared owner of immovables with municipal taxes unpaid for at least three years, expands permitted municipal leasing and gratuitous alienations to public bodies, non‑profits and childcare operators, and explicitly allows building by‑laws to set energy efficiency requirements. It also changes publication thresholds for alienations, removes certain rectory tax exemptions and creates a narrow transfer duty exemption for transfers between undivided co‑owners who live on the property.
Who It Affects
Local municipalities and metropolitan authorities, non‑profit organizations and childcare operators seeking space, contiguous landowners interested in acquiring small parcels, owners of tax‑delinquent or abandoned properties, diocesan/rectory property holders, and municipal finance officers responsible for loan by‑laws and reserve allocations.
Why It Matters
The bill supplies municipalities with operational tools to address vacant, tax‑delinquent land and to place property into community use, while changing fiscal and transparency regimes that govern municipal asset sales and borrowing. That combination alters property risk, administrative burdens on courts and land registries, and the distribution of tax privileges.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 22 is a package of municipal law reforms that aims to give local governments clearer, broader powers over real estate they manage or want to re‑use. One of its central mechanisms is a court‑based path: where municipal taxes on an immovable have not been paid for at least three years and the owner cannot be located, a municipality may apply to the Superior Court to be declared owner, provided the municipality uses the land for municipal purposes or plans to transfer it to the owner of adjacent land.
The bill sets out procedural steps for that route, including mandatory public notices before filing, publishing the judgment in the land register, extinguishing most registered real rights on final judgment and a statutory indemnity process for affected right‑holders.
The legislation also relaxes prior restrictions that generally prevented municipalities from acquiring or building property mainly for leasing. Under the new rules, municipalities may acquire or construct immovables to lease specifically to public bodies, non‑profit organizations or licensed childcare centres, and may transfer land gratuitously to those same categories of recipients.
For very small parcels, the bill enables municipalities to alienate land directly to the owner of contiguous property and explicitly removes the Municipal Aid Prohibition Act’s application to that assistance.On transparency and oversight, the bill raises the materiality threshold for published alienations: municipalities and metropolitan bodies must publish lists of properties they have leased or alienated but only for properties valued over $50,000 and at least twice a year, replacing prior monthly notices and the lower $10,000 threshold. Several provisions adjust financial governance: numeric thresholds used in borrowing and approval routines are increased in multiple statutes (for example, a 5% figure is raised to 10% in several contexts) and the statutory cap on reserves is removed.
Finally, the bill amends building by‑law authority so municipal by‑laws may prescribe energy efficiency standards and other measures regulating the design, materials and reconstruction of structures.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A municipality can apply to the Superior Court to be declared owner of an immovable if municipal taxes have been unpaid for at least three years, the owner cannot be found and the municipality intends municipal use or alienation to a contiguous owner.
For immovables valued over $15,000 the court route also requires the property to be subject to a building prohibition, to be vacant land and to have an area no greater than 0.5 hectare.
Before filing, the municipality must publish a public notice at least 60 days in advance (and must give a 30‑day separate notice to registered third‑party right‑holders it wishes removed); extinguished registered rights give rise to a statutory indemnity claim governed by expropriation rules and a three‑year prescription for recovery.
Municipalities and métros must publish on a website, at least twice a year, a list of immovables alienated or leased under the new rules and any non‑immovable alienation over $50,000, replacing previous monthly publications and a $10,000 threshold.
The bill inserts a transfer‑duty exemption for deeds transferring an immovable from a natural person to a natural‑person transferee who already owns an undivided share in the same property and is domiciled there.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Building by‑laws may regulate energy efficiency and reconstruction
The bill amends the list of subjects a municipal building by‑law may cover to include explicit authority to prescribe energy efficiency standards alongside traditional safety, strength and materials controls. It also allows by‑laws to require repair or reconstruction of existing structures within a minimum six‑month compliance window and to set standards that vary by structure type, use or location. Practically, municipalities can now adopt by‑laws that move beyond form and safety to demand measurable energy performance; planners and compliance officers will need to align by‑law content with provincial codes and consider phased compliance timelines.
Permitting municipal leasing and targeted gratuitous alienations
The Act removes the blanket prohibition on acquiring or building property mainly for leasing by allowing acquisition/build‑to‑lease when the lessee is a public body, a non‑profit, or a licensed childcare/daycare operator. It also permits municipalities to give immovables gratuitously to those same entities. The statute requires municipalities to publish online lists of properties alienated or leased under these powers and raises the publication threshold to properties worth over $50,000. Separately, municipalities may alienate small, low‑value parcels to adjacent owners, and the Municipal Aid Prohibition Act will not bar assistance in those specific cases — a practical expedient for tidying up property lines but one that narrows prior anti‑subsidy guardrails.
Court process to declare municipalities owner of long‑delinquent, ownerless land
A detailed procedure lets municipalities ask the Superior Court to transfer ownership of immovables when taxes have been unpaid three years and the owner is unknown or unlocatable. The bill prescribes mandatory public notice at least 60 days before filing, a 30‑day notice to third‑party right‑holders when the municipality seeks their removal, publication of the judgment in the land register, and statutory extinguishment of most registered real rights on finality of the judgment. Affected right‑holders can claim indemnity; failing agreement, valuation is decided by the Administrative Tribunal of Québec under adapted expropriation rules, and claims are barred after three years from publication or cancellation.
Standardizing director general powers and council convening rules
The bill clarifies the director general’s supervisory authority (including suspension powers), requires the DG to prepare budgets and capital plans with department heads and to attend meetings to give advice without vote, and tightens notice rules for special council sittings (notice no later than 24 hours before). It also creates an explicit written‑waiver mechanism for members present at a special sitting. These changes formalize executive administration responsibilities and create clearer reporting lines, but they also shift responsibilities into the DG’s office that may require changes to municipal HR and governance protocols.
Narrow transfer duty exemption for transfers between undivided co‑owners
The bill adds a narrow exemption from transfer duties when a natural‑person transferor sells an immovable to a natural‑person transferee who already owns an undivided share and is domiciled there. That targets common intra‑family or consolidation transactions and lowers transactional frictions for undivided ownership restructurings, but the exemption is strictly textual and confined to natural‑person parties who are domestic occupants.
Ending special rectory exemptions and repealing related regulation
The bill abolishes the property and school tax exemptions that some rectories previously enjoyed and repeals the regulation setting a maximum non‑taxable value for certain rectories. That removes an established tax preference for some religious‑institution properties and may increase municipal tax bases where rectories are municipally taxable going forward. Municipal tax administrators will have to update rolls and re‑run exemption audits.
Higher publication thresholds, adjusted loan/approval thresholds and reserve rules
Across municipal, metropolitan and transit statutes the bill replaces monthly notice requirements and a $10,000 publication threshold with twice‑yearly website postings for properties above $50,000. It also increases several percentages used in financial governance from 5% to 10% (affecting loan authorizations and similar approvals) and withdraws a statutory maximum on amounts allocated to a municipal financial reserve. Those mechanical but material changes recalibrate municipal transparency, borrowing oversight and fiscal flexibility.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Municipal governments — get new legal tools to acquire, rehabilitate or re‑use tax‑delinquent and small parcels, to provide leased space to public bodies, non‑profits and childcare providers, and to delegate clearer operational authority to directors general.
- Non‑profit organizations and childcare/daycare operators — gain prioritized access to municipally leased or gratuitously transferred premises, lowering barriers to secure premises for social services.
- Owners of contiguous lots — can buy or receive small, low‑value parcels next to their land more easily, simplifying boundary consolidations and resolving awkward slivers of public land.
- Undivided co‑owners who live on a property — benefit from a narrowly tailored transfer‑duty exemption when consolidating undivided shares, reducing transactional costs.
- Municipal development subsidiaries and special purpose entities (e.g., Société GALOPH) — receive clearer enabling authority and explicit tax treatment for assets acquired under city agreements.
Who Bears the Cost
- Owners of tax‑delinquent or abandoned properties — face loss of ownership through court procedure, extinguishment of rights and potential reductions to indemnity recoveries to cover unpaid taxes and municipal costs.
- Dioceses and rectory owners — lose certain property and school tax exemptions and may face new municipal tax liabilities where exemptions are removed.
- Land registries and courts — will carry added workload from published notices, court applications to declare municipal ownership, indemnity proceedings and registration cancellations.
- Municipal finance officers and auditors — must manage revised publication duties, new borrowing thresholds and the administrative consequences of removing a statutory cap on reserves, including potential political pressure over reserve allocations.
- Third‑party creditors and encumbrancers — risk extinguishment of registered rights if they were not properly notified, creating valuation and recovery challenges against the indemnity regime.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between giving municipalities flexible, operational tools to tackle abandoned properties and to provide space for public and non‑profit uses, and protecting property rights, transparency and fiscal checks: the bill expands municipal authority and discretion at the cost of extinguishing existing rights more readily, narrowing public notice windows and loosening certain financial constraints — a trade‑off with no unambiguous legal or political fix.
The bill balances municipal pragmatism against private‑property protections, but several implementation challenges and trade‑offs remain unresolved. The court‑based ownership transfer relies on publication and notification rules to protect unknown or absent right‑holders, yet the mechanism extinguishes registered rights on final judgment in ways that may produce complex valuation disputes.
The indemnity route channels disputes to the Administrative Tribunal under adapted expropriation procedures, but the statutory three‑year prescription window and the deduction of unpaid taxes and municipal costs from indemnities create legal and equity issues for small creditors or informal right‑holders.
On transparency and fiscal oversight, raising publication thresholds and moving to twice‑annual website postings reduces continuous public visibility of municipal alienations and may limit timely public scrutiny, particularly for communities with low digital access. Increasing multiple 5% thresholds to 10% and removing a statutory cap on reserve allocations increase municipal financial discretion; those changes enhance flexibility but also raise governance questions about checks on borrowing and fiscal prudence.
Finally, adding energy efficiency to the scope of building by‑laws empowers local climate action but invites coordination questions with provincial building codes, potential retrofit costs for owners, and conflict over minimum compliance timelines.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.