Law360 Canada ( May 15, 2026, 9:34 AM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant from her conviction for dangerous driving causing death. The appellant drove her friend, Moore, to the apartment of his ex‑girlfriend, Ikeda. While waiting in her truck, the appellant saw Moore gesture for her to leave, at the same time observing Ikeda, angry and approaching quickly, cross in front of the vehicle. Ikeda stepped onto the running board, opened the driver’s door, and reached inside toward the ignition. The appellant accelerated and swerved in an attempt to dislodge her. As she drove uphill, the open door struck bystander Mantla, who later died of his injuries. At trial, the appellant argued she acted in self‑defence, believing Ikeda intended to harm her, and further contended that the trial judge erred in assessing mens rea, in rejecting self‑defence, and in failing to apply R v W.(D.) (W.(D.)). The appellant submitted that the modified objective test for dangerous driving required consideration of all circumstances, and that her subjective fear and clavicle injury made her reaction reasonable. She further argued that the trial judge mischaracterized her as overly fearful, misapprehended evidence of Ikeda’s threatening conduct, failed to properly consider proportionality, and did not account for the size, age, gender, and physical capability factors. The Crown maintained that the appellant intentionally drove in a dangerous manner to remove Ikeda from the truck, satisfying subjective mens rea, and that the trial judge correctly applied self‑defence law....