The appellant, A.R., appealed convictions on 30 counts, including serious sexual offences and physical abuse of her children, and cruelty to pets.
The appeal raised two arguments: first, that the trial judge misapplied R. v. W.(D.) by requiring corroboration of the appellant's evidence; and second, that the trial judge erred by conflating "proven absence of motive" with "absence of evidence of motive" regarding the children's testimony.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapplication of W.(D.) and that the trial judge properly considered the absence of evidence of motive as one factor in assessing credibility.
