What is the case law on economic considerations in a custody dispute?

Finally, in considering the capacity of each party to exercise any right or duty that may be granted, I am persuaded that all parties at bar are in a position to give M. an upbringing that meets her basic needs. In stating this, I am mindful that while the physical standard of upbringing the respondents can give is good and sufficient, the petitioners are able to give a standard of upbringing that is not only good and sufficient but materially much better than the respondents can give, by reason of the respondents’ more restricted finances. However, I am of the view that all parties are capable of providing an acceptable standard of parenting. The fact that one side in this dispute, by reason of economic circumstances, is in a position to provide significantly more material benefits than the other party is, of itself, not a decisive factor. By the same token, it is not irrelevant. It is a factor to be weighed. McIntyre J. stated as much in King v. Low, 1985 CanLII 59 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 87 at 101, with respect to a court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction in matters of contested custody: I would therefore hold that in the case at bar the dominant consideration to which all other considerations must remain subordinate must be the welfare of the child. This is not to say that the question of custody will be determined by weighing the economic circumstances of the contending parties. The matter will not be determined solely on the basis of physical comfort and material advantages that may be available in the home of one contender or the other. The welfare of the child must be decided on a consideration of these and all other relevant factors, including the general psychological, spiritual and emotional welfare of the child.