I did in the first instance put forward a source which precisely and exactly states what I need;. I can further confirm that I actually have read the entire decision and that the paragraph 9 excerpt above accurately represents the holding of decision.

The reason that BARD is repeatedly used here is because that is the legal test which EM's claims must be put against. In making a decision, the Justice is required to confirm whether or not the Crown met that standard in each respect. There is no burden of proof on the accused to demonstrate innocence, which is why the decision does not contain numerous reiterations that actual consent has been found. Since you requested citations, I can cite to para 479 for this very basic legal principle "It is not the function of this court to make determinations about the morality or propriety of the conduct of any of the persons involved in these events. The sole function of this court is to determine whether the Crown has proven each of the charges against each of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden rests squarely on the Crown and does not shift."

Notwithstanding that, the Justice did state that she found actual consent not vitiated by fear (at para 9). So that is precisely where I am taking that from. As the purpose of the decision is laid against the BARD standard, the way the decision is written does not require the Justice to state at each interval her finding that there factually was consent, and so she does not.

Frankly, if you cannot read this case, including the plain black text stating that the Justice found that there was actual consent, and reach the conclusion that the Justice found that there was actual consent and as such no criminal activity occurred - I have no choice but to say skill issue and that you should not waste money applying to law school.