To family court judges it does not really make any difference if the custody
argument is regarding a child or in this case a dog. The unwritten rule in
Canadian Family courts is that women get custody of anything and everything they
want, even if the only issue is the dog.
Justice Ted Zarzeczny is simply a player on the stage and wants to take his bow and have the audience deem him the hero and the parties the villains which is the usual logic in the reasons for judicial decisions from family court.
One of the problems being that Canadian Family courts operate as much as possible behind closed doors, for the sole reason of hiding the dirty business of the underbelly of the judiciary engaging in political decision making called judicial reasoning, while the legal world has another name for it that you wont find in the Canadian Dictionary of Law called "The process of justification" that's the same logic used by criminal gangs and their snob class equivalent, the Legal Cartel whose Sargents at arms are Canada's corrupt man hating judiciary.