Le droit criminel ne reconnaît pas la négligence contributive et ne comporte aucun mécanisme de partage de la responsabilité relative au préjudice résultant d'une conduite criminelle, sauf dans le contexte de la détermination de la peine une fois que l'existence d'un lien de causalité suffisant a été établie

R. v. Lesuk, 2000 MBCA 24 

Lien vers la décision

[30]           The Crown is quite right in asserting that the civil law concept of contributory negligence has no place in criminal proceedings. The point is made succinctly by Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law, 2nd Ed. (London: Butterworths, 1983) (at p. 396):

"The principle is that the victim's contributory negligence is no answer to a charge of crime. In other words, it is generally no defence that the victim laid himself open to the act, or was himself guilty of negligence bringing it about."

[31]           Whether the deceased was guilty of such contributory negligence as to disentitle her to claim damages in tort is beside the point. See R. v. Chotem (1924), 1924 CanLII 495 (SK CA), 42 C.C.C. 156 (Sask. C.A.), R. v. Field, 1928 CanLII 317 (AB CA), [1928] 3 W.W.R. 757 (Alta. C.A.), R. v. Mitchell (1981), 1981 CanLII 4242 (PE SCAD), 29 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 82 A.P.R. 125 (P.E.I.C.A.), R. v. Duncan (A.G.) (1994), 1994 CanLII 3386 (PE SCAD), 116 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 170; 363 A.P.R. 170 (P.E.I.C.A.), and R. v. Fortin (1957), 1957 CanLII 524 (NB CA), 121 C.C.C. 345 (N.B.C.A.).