Supreme Court of Canada - Yes means No?

This decision last week has - predictably - generated a HUGE amount of feminist screeching.   Chief Justice Beverly McLaughlin wrote the majority decision - but Justice Fish wrote the sole dissenting opinion.

Among the "expected MSM" articles was this one from Canadian Press, it pretty well defines the feminist side.  Then there was this more serious exploration in (of all places) The Toronto [Red] Star by Rosie Dimanno (who appears to be the sole voice of reason there).

From there we learn that:
1)  The women only charged her former (common-law) husband 2mths later when they were battling over custody of their daughter.
2) LEAF funded intervenor status.
3) She consented to the [twisted + demeaning] sexual activity while conscious, before passing out for 3 minutes (brain damage?)  and continued with regular intercourse afterwards.

The major conclusion:  “Parliament’s definition of consent does not extend to advance consent to sexual acts committed while the complainant is unconscious.”

But Justice Morris Fish, in writing the dissenting opinion, makes an emphatic point: “It is a fundamental principle of the law governing sexual assault in Canada that no means ‘no’ and only yes means ‘yes.’ K.D. said yes, not no …

“The provisions of the Criminal Code regarding consent to sexual contact and the case law were intended to protect women against abuse by others. They aim to safeguard and enhance the sexual autonomy of women, and not to make choices for them.”

K.D. made that choice and expressed it clearly. But the Supreme Court — essentially infantilizing the woman — has ruled otherwise.

LINK1

[Update: This seems to move the definition of rape closer to ridiculed Antioch College Code created in 1994 (IMHO, the height of the feminist hegemony).]