Ms. Tabibi was driving her four-wheel drive truck on a highway in British Columbia at 1:00AM. There were two lanes on the highway, one northbound and one Southbound. Coming to a curve, she e

Ms. Tabibi was driving her four-wheel drive truck on a highway in British Columbia at 1:00AM. There were two lanes on the highway, one northbound and one Southbound. Coming to a curve, she ended up on the opposite lane and her truck collided head on with the car driving on the opposite lane. As result of the collision the occupants of the car died in the crash. The evidence showed that after Ms. Tabibi had bought the vehicle, she had it modified with what is known as a “lift kit” and had oversize high tread tires installed, the kit raised the truck eight inches higher than it was in its manufactured state. She had this work professionally done and properly certified. Ms. Moon, an expert in motor vehicle accident recon?struction, testified that in her opinion, the effect of the modification to Ms. Tabibi’s vehicle reduced its stability by raising the centre of gravity, and the oversized tires both reduced the cornering ability of the vehicle and increased the amount of force required to make a turn. It was, however, capable of negotiating the highway and, in particular, capable of negotiating at 100 kph (kilometer per hour) the curve where the collision occurred. Ms. Tabibi’s speed at the time of the collision was 102 kph. Upon questioning by the police, Ms. Tabibi was cooperative and was able to recount the events leading up to the accident, but she said that she could not provide an explanation as to why she ended up on the wrong side of the road at the curve. What are the charges? Identify and define the actus reus and mens rea of the offence? What does the Crown need to prove to obtain a conviction? Substantiate your charges and arguments by relying on the facts of the case. Would she be found guilty of the charge?