The former loans manager of an Edmonton dealership faces sentencing for the 2012 death of an 18-year-old mother in a hit-and-run collision while he was driving his demo, a Dodge Charger, at 3 a.m.
After a non-jury trial, Justice Adam Germain of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench convicted Kenneth Didechko of leaving the scene of the accident and obstruction of justice in the incident.
In his decision, Germain wrote that “modern technology has changed the way in which police investigate crime,” noting that authorities used GPS and cell phone communications system towers to prove their case.
Didechko, who worked at Southtown Chrysler at the time, falsely reported that the car had been stolen before the incident.
However, the judge acquitted Didechko of dangerous driving causing death, finding insufficient proof of that charge despite “some evidence” of drinking, speeding and using his cell phone just before the collision.
The maximum possible sentence is life imprisonment for leaving the accident scene and 10 years for obstruction of justice, a prosecution spokesman said.
Didechko’s defence lawyers didn’t respond to requests for comment.
A Chevrolet store in Kapuskasing, Ont., must pay $19,642 in damages for breach of implied warranties on a 2009 GMC Sierra Duramax it sold, an Ontario Superior Court of Justice judge has ruled.
Seven months after Andre Marcil bought the new truck at Eastview Chevrolet-Buick- GMC, it suddenly auto-accelerated to 150 km/h before Marcil could slow it down. The incident occurred on a hunting trip in northern Ontario when the Sierra had 15,000 kilometres on it.
Marcil refused to drive it again, the suit alleged.
Eastview Chevrolet was unable to identify the cause of the one-time malfunction and couldn’t find another 2009 Sierra to replace it. As a result, Marcil bought a 2011 model with fewer accessories from the store.
In her decision, Judge Louise Gauthier said, “The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that, although there was no evidence of the cause of the defect, the event could only have occurred as a result of a defect in the vehicle.”
“The defect emerged in the course of the ordinary use of the vehicle. It also emerged when the vehicle was still quite new. And there was no conduct on the part of Marcil that could account for the event,” she said.
The decision overturned a small-claims-court ruling in the store’s favour.
The amount of damages was the difference between what Marcil paid for the replacement vehicle and the value of options not included in the replacement.