The accused is charged with cruelty to a kitten under section 446 of the Criminal Code. He is found not guilty because the judge is not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had “exclusive opportunity” to commit the offence. I.e. the court is not satisfied that the accused was the only person who had an opportunity to perpetrate the injuries found on the kitten. Evidence existed that the accused often left his door open and that the kitten would often run to the door, although he was not seen by the witness to ever actually get out. However, the judge is not satisfied that the kitten did not get out during the time frames when the accused was alone with the kitten and the cause of the injuries is not clear; the medical evidence is that the injuries could have been caused by a car or bicycle, even though the kitten did not have road abrasion. Further, there is evidence that the accused is still completely trusted with care of cats by the owner of the kitten and that the accused cares for animals well. The accused is acquitted.
Source: Case Law