Most judges are extreme-left in their political views. The idea that they are unbiased or simply ruling on matters of law is a polite fiction. Judges who wished to put the natural rights and welfare of children first would never have "found" the right to abortion or "found" the right to same-sex marriage in the Charter. And I say "found", because neither of them are there.
Under the present regime, the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of speech have all been either abrogated or diminished. (Christians have been hauled before human rights tribunals, fined, fired from their jobs, and imprisoned for their Christian speech and actions.)
Other rights, such as the right to an abortion, and the right to a same-sex marriage have been championed, advanced, and upheld by the Courts.
So, the actual track record of the Courts is that they have failed to protect the rights that are actually in the Charter, while advancing rights that are not. If that's not the definition of bias, I don't know what is.
The Courts feign objectivity, but in fact the whole process is political. First, the PM appoints the judges. That's a political decision. Then, the government of the day gets to fund "pet causes" for Charter challenges. That's political. The funding of these groups sends a clear political "signal" to the Courts. And then the courts rule in favour of the latest leftist cause du jour, and the PM says "the Courts have decided". In fact, he doesn't even say this. He says, "it's a Charter right".
It's all politics, wrapped in a Charter document that is powerless in the hands of an all-powerful judiciary.