applied in employment discrimination cases, although the burden of production shifts to the defendant after the plaintiff makes out a pri-ma facie case, the "ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact ... remains at all times with the plaintiff”). 21 . Cf. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Ont. (Human Rights Comm’n), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 321, ¶ 119 (Can.) (referring to "the rule of evidence that the burden of proof should lie on the person most likely to be in possession of the relevant facts”); McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138, ¶ 30 (Can.) ("The burden of proof should fall on the party who is in the best position to obtain the facts.”). 22 . See Schaible Elec. Ltd. v. Melloul-Blamey Constr., Inc., [2004] 35 C.L.R. (3d) 141, ¶¶ 105-26 (Ont.) (standing merely for R. 653, 655-56 (Ont.) (<HOLDING>). 23 . In oral argument before this Court,
holding that seller was entitled to recover contract price of goods where buyer failed to make effective rejection under the ucc holding merely that to the extent a breaching party claims that the appropriate measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the market price it holds the burden of proving that there is in fact an available market for the goods in issue holding that where buyer had opportunity to inspect goods and failed to inform seller in timely manner of defects buyer deemed to have accepted goods pursuant to  672606 holding that title revested in seller under california law when buyer revoked his acceptance of goods holding merely that to the extent a breaching buyer wishes to invoke the presumption that a nonbreaching seller will resell the contractedfor goods in the open market it holds the burden of proving that there is in fact an available market for those goods