The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment awarding custody of the child to the respondent father.
She argued that the trial judge's comments in chambers and during the trial created a reasonable apprehension of bias and prejudgment.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while some comments were unfortunate, a reasonable person would not conclude the trial judge had prejudged the issue.
The Court also upheld the trial judge's finding that it was in the best interests of the child for the father to have custody, noting the decision was fully supported by the evidence and the factors in section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.
