The author delineated them well. Your ability to read and reason is suspect.

There are other concerns though, not only in the Judge's ruling, but in the legislation itself.

Author states:
[Our Criminal Code says that “voluntary agreement” cannot be obtained from someone who is “incapable of consenting.” The Code does not define what that means ] 

And that's problematic for a number of reasons, one of them being unintended consequences to interpreting that too widely since it is left undefined. For instance, what other activities are also illegal when dealing with a woman (this should be defined as *person*) who is incapable of consent? Can she *voluntarily* (ostensibly with independent evidence to corroborate) consent to sex? This has profound implications. How about selling the person, say, cigarettes? Giving them one? Does this also apply to married couples?

The Judge has come under a huge amount of flak, but very few save those in law,  understand how the law works.