The judge had this to say:

“The Crown failed to produce any evidence of lack of consent at any time.”

I think the judge doesn't understand how to apply the law.  This assertion of his indicates he believes that consent is implied, or the ambient state.  There is no such thing as implied consent or presumed consent.  There should have to be proof of consent.  The Crown's job is to show lack of capacity for consent and precedence  in law says inebriation can render one incapacitated.  Then the judge also said (with certainty) that drunk people can consent seemingly without awareness that his statement is no absolute in law.

This case is yet another sordid example of judges who let their implicit biases interfere in jurisprudence and the victims suffer.