I had a few problems with the author's observations:
1. She was concerned that no precedents were referred to. The problem, I believe, therefore does not lie with the Judge, but with the  Crown who did not provide precedents to bolster the Crown's case (and with the defense attorney, I suppose);

2. The author acknowledges that a drunk can consent to sex, but then claims that it 'defies reason' that you could be speaking clearly ('victim' friend's testimony) while intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness, provide consent, then become unconscious within an eleven minute span. Ok, fine. Provide medical evidence that your hypothesis is true, prove that the consent happened outside of the period between getting into the taxi and becoming unconscious, otherwise what, exactly, do you want the Justice to base his opinion on? Your acknowledgement that a drunk can consent to sex?