Is there an argument of inevitability of loss?

Although addressed and demonstrated by plaintiffs’ counsel in summation as to why an argument of inevitability of loss is not viable, the defendants did not raise it and thereby, in keeping with Justice LaForest’s directions on shifting onus in Hodgkinson v. Simms, 1994 CanLII 70 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377 at 441, did not attempt to show the plaintiffs would have sustained the losses regardless of the breach. Under the circumstances, I see no need for comment.