In the first case, money is the evidence that an exchange of money took place, and in the second, there is DNA evidence that there was sexual activity (in Halifax) and agreed testimony of both parties (in St. John's).  In both cases, it's only a crime if there was not consent.

I'm just pointing out that in the case of robbery, the testimony of the complainant that the money was taken without their consent is generally sufficient.  Even if they might not remember all of the event, it wouldn't be considered a reasonable doubt that they might have consented and forgot.  The complainant in a robbery isn't required to prove beyond any doubt that they didn't consent to giving their money away, yet the complainant in a sexual assault seems to be.  And I don't see any objective reason for the obvious difference in how these two crimes are treated.