It’s finally over. With today’s sentencing of former Huntsville Economic Development Officer John Finley, the Blackbird Boats fiasco has been put to rest. Finley was in Bracebridge court on Tuesday, February 9, 2016 and pleaded guilty to the swearing of a false affidavit on January 31, 2011.
Finley was sentenced to three months of conditional house arrest and another three months during which he will have to adhere to a curfew between the hours of 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. and a court mandated surcharge of $100. Prompted by Crown attorney Ted Carleton, he was also ordered to serve 30 hours of community service.
In handing down her sentence, Justice of the Peace Cecile Applegate noted that Finley, 67, has no previous criminal record. She said while he should have known better, she accepts the premise put forth by his counsel that his actions were a “fleeting moment of misjudgment in an otherwise impeccable life.” Although she added that “it was a serious and deliberate moment of misjudgment,” she accepts the numerous character reference letters which confirm shock with Finley’s actions and how “out of character this is for him.”
Current and former community members pen letters in support of Finley
The court heard that 16 character reference letters were received on his behalf from, among others, former Huntsville Mayor Len Clarke, former Huntsville Chief Librarian Maureen Cubberley, former Huntsville and current Kingston CAO Kelly Pender, Huntsville Councillor Brian Thompson, and Finley’s daughter Alexandra. The court also heard that the publicity stemming from Finley’s charges have been very difficult on him and his family, has contributed to his wife Celia’s health issues, and has tainted his reputation and impacted his business as a consultant.
“Absent this matter… he has worked the better part of his life to improve this community,” said Applegate who agreed to a joint submission between Finley’s lawyer, Jonathan Shime, and the Crown for which a portion would be fulfilled under house arrest rather than the customary jail time. She said the sentence provides a “significant” amount of denunciation and sends a message to the community at large that “this type of conduct will not be tolerated.”

John Finley
She also said that while she accepts that Finley was not the creator of the litigation strategy that saw the Town of Huntsville and its former tenant, Blackbird Boats (operating under the corporate name Hunter-Rutland), embroiled in a lengthy legal battle over rental arrears and the tenant’s missing CNC router, it in no way detracts from the fact that Finley should have known better when he swore a false affidavit. The court heard in a statement of facts that in that affidavit, prepared by a paralegal hired by the Town and sworn to by Finley on January 31, 2011, Finley did not acknowledge the sale of the CNC router the tenants left behind when they were evicted from the building they rented from the Town at 215 Main Street East. Finley at the time indicated that he presumed the router had been removed by the tenants although it was later discovered that it had been sold by Finley to someone in Collingwood for the sum of $6,500 and paid for through a bank draft which went directly to the account of then Huntsville Mayor Claude Doughty’s charity golf tournament. It’s that affidavit that landed Finley in hot water and for which he has been convicted. The charges of obstructing a peace officer and perjury have been dropped.
Here is what happened as read in court during a statement of facts:
- In 2004, the Town of Huntsville and Blackbird Boats (Hunter-Rutland) enter into a rental agreement for space owned by the Town at 215 Main Street East. Rent is $2,006.25 per month.
- By July 2007, the tenants fall into arrears by an estimated $17,000 (and utilities).
- On July 23, 2007, a frustrated Finley emails the tenants and advises them the Town has changed the locks due to arrears. The tenants are given 30 days to move their equipment from the property.
- On July 30, 2007, Finley again emails the tenants, Richard Perdue and Paul Hunter, indicating that there is another tenant interested in renting the property and asks when they will have all contents removed. There is no response.
- On July 31, 2007, Finley again emails the tenants and asks them to respond.
- On September 4, 2007, Finley again emails the tenants and asks when he can expect vacant possession of the unit.
- On September 27, 2007, Finley again emails the tenants asking them to have all of their property removed by 4 p.m. on October 4, 2007 indicating that any property remaining will be considered abandoned and removed from the property.
- On October 3, 2007, Richard Perdue responds in an email to Finley and indicates that everything but a CNC router has been removed from the premises. He asks whether the Town could rent the company a small area of the premises in order to store the router until they’re able to remove it.
- On October 4, 2007, Finley replies in an email that he has discussed the request with the mayor and has been instructed by him to keep the building and contents secured until full payment of arrears has been received.
- On May 7, 2008, Finley emails the tenants and informs them that the Town of Huntsville is in the process of selling the building and requires vacant possession by the end of May, and asks to be contacted on the matter immediately to advise when the machinery will be removed.
- Blackbird Boats does not respond to the email, nor pay the back rent or remove the router. It is at that time that the Town takes the legal position that the router has been abandoned. Finley is directed to sell the router and clear the unit.
- In the spring of 2008, Finley speaks to Britt Stevens, who rents a separate unit in the same building, and asks him if he knows of anyone interested in the router, which Finley tells him is being sold by the Town to recover rental arrears owed by Blackbird.
- The court heard that Stevens then contacts a businessman in Collingwood who indicates he is interested in purchasing the router.
- The businessman meets Finley at the building on July 13, 2008 and inspects the router, which has not been in operation since July 2007. Subsequently an offer of $6,500 is made and accepted by Finley without a proper appraisal and without notifying the router’s owners.
- On July 16, 2008, the businessman meets Finley at the building and provides Finley with a bank draft for $6,500 payable to the Town of Huntsville and retrieves the router on a flatbed truck. No invoice is provided for the sale. The bank draft is deposited into the account of the Mayor of Huntsville’s charity golf tournament.
- In late December 2008, at the request of his accountant, the Collingwood businessman contacts Finley to ask for an invoice. Finley sends a receipt for a charitable donation to the Mayor’s golf tournament for $6,500 prepared by the Town.
- Between 2009 and 2010, Richard Perdue makes several inquiries to the Town asking about the router. He is never told that the router, for which he paid $98,000 US, has been sold.
- In October 2010, Perdue goes to the OPP to report that the router has been stolen.
- The OPP issues a press release asking for assistance in locating the router. They eventually learn of the businessman in Collingwood who is in possession of the router. Blackbird is not informed of this.
- In January 2010, the Town sues Blackbird for rent arrears.
- In August 2010, Blackbird sues the Town for the loss of the router. During the civil proceedings Finley is asked to swear to an affidavit on behalf of the Town on January 31, 2011, which gets him into trouble. In paragraph 16 of the affidavit it states that the plaintiff (the Town) believes router has been removed by Blackbird Boats, its principals or a party secured by the company to remove it, despite Finley’s knowledge that the router has been sold to someone in Collingwood.
- It is not until late 2011 or early 2012 that Perdue learns that the Town has sold the router.
- In the fall of 2014, a Superior Court judge rules against the Town for selling the router without giving proper notice or selling it at a reasonable price. That decision is later upheld when the Town appeals the decision.
- Finley faces charges of obstructing a peace officer and perjury. The Town eventually settles with Blackbird Boats. Fast forward to February 9, 2016 and Finley takes a plea for swearing a false affidavit and is sentenced.
Finley served as the Manager and Director of Pioneer Village and eventually was promoted as the Economic Development and Grants Officer for the Town of Huntsville, a position he held from 2001 until he retired in 2012.
See Doppler’s related stories at these links:
Legal battle at Town Hall spans four terms of Council, has the makings of a made-for-TV saga
Town’s legal saga with former tenant finally comes to an end. Town pays tenant $116,500
Town’s former employee facing criminal charges
It was spelled out quite clearly in a former edition of “The Doppler” that the Town would only cover Mr. Finley’s legal costs if he was to be found innocent. Let us hope that this principle, at least, is followed.
Regarding this whole issue, I do not condone anyone swearing a false affidavit or acting outside the law.
That being said, the information in this news story prickles with questions.
“Finley is directed to sell the router and clear the unit.” Who gave this directive? Was there discussion as to determination of price and appropriate protocol? If not, why not?
Now here’s where it gets sticky. “On July 16, 2008, the businessman meets Finley at the building and provides Finley with a bank draft for $6,500 payable to the Town of Huntsville and retrieves the router on a flatbed truck. No invoice is provided for the sale. The bank draft is deposited into the account of the Mayor of Huntsville’s charity golf tournament.” What is going on here? Who directed Finley to deposit the money into the account of the mayor’s charity golf tournament? What prompted this action? Why was this idiosyncrasy not picked up?
Are we supposed to believe that not one person in the accounting/finance department of the town, not one person on the Council’s finance committee, no one involved with the town’s financial administration thought this transaction to be out of the ordinary and rather absurd? Are we to believe that there is no firm protocol in place for this type of activity, especially with the magnitude of legal fees that the town incurs plus the experts on staff, all under the watchful eye of the mayor and council? Keep in mind also that there is top of the line technology at the town hall which gives access to every aspect of municipal government administration.
There are a lot more questions that could be asked here.
Hi Craig, if it is a residential issue Landlords can plead their case at the Landlord and Tenant Tribunal. For commercial Tenants, Landlords will generally try to retrieve rental arrears through Small Claims Court, which is what the Town did. Blackbird also launched a lawsuit for the router – and the issue was heard in Superior Court. In the end, the judge reprimanded the Town for not applying the funds from the sale of the router to the rental arrears, for not getting a proper appraisal and for not notifying the former tenant of the sale. The Town appealed and lost. Faced with having to return to court and incur more legal costs to determine router costs, it opted to settle with Blackbird. As for lessons learned, while we can’t speak for the Town, we think they’ll consider this experience in future.
If you didn’t know anything else about this story and you simply read the timeline in the article above, you might come to the conclusion that Blackbird had more than enough opportunities to recover their router. Their lack of communication, failure to pay their rent, and failure to remove their own property after repeated requests and warnings seems to indicate that most of the fault is theirs.
I am not saying that Finley was right to swear a false affidavit and I understand that a tenant has certain rights, but as an entrepreneur myself, I have very little patience for people or businesses who take advantage of others (in this case the town). Clearly the lesson to be learned here is that you should always follow the proper procedures when you are dealing with any situation, especially if you are representing the town (the people).
Has anyone identified exactly how this should have been handled so that we can learn from it? I am guessing that Finley should have sent registered mail instead of emails for the warnings, and surely there is some legal recourse for a landlord in this situation?
Somehow, sending e-mails for legal matters does not seem appropriate! Whatever happened to registered mail / personal service?? No wonder this was going off the rails!
Previous Huntsville Town Employees/Councils seem to not have an understanding of Ethics. Many professional organizations have Guidelines and have disciplinary committees. Huntsville appears to be still trying to figure it out.
Yes I am making a big accusation about the town. The whole Blackbird Boat saga shows that there are persons who seem to feel that they are smarter than the laws.
Wendy that depends on the Town. We’ve left a message with the CAO to find out.
Well as Mr Finley was found guilty does he have to pay his own legal bills?