No it doesn't. Unless such actions have consequences for the police and prosecutors beyond their case being thrown out, this injustice persists. To claim otherwise is like saying the injustice of a robbery has been rectified because the robber was not allowed to keep the stolen goods. That's not what "justice" means.
What the judge is really telling police and prosecutors is: You failed this time, but by all means keep trying.
I am really unsure what was going on here - it seems the crown made no attempt to find the victim guilty, and the police had formally rejected charges (and as the ruling says literally told the complainant that if anyone had committed crimes it was them).
The judge also seems to believe that this is what the crown was wanting, so is there some reason that they could have been required to bring the case?
No it doesn't. Unless such actions have consequences for the police and prosecutors beyond their case being thrown out, this injustice persists. To claim otherwise is like saying the injustice of a robbery has been rectified because the robber was not allowed to keep the stolen goods. That's not what "justice" means.
What the judge is really telling police and prosecutors is: You failed this time, but by all means keep trying.