In determining that the contents of the cigarette package was tobacco processed in the form of cigarettes, and in the absence of any evidence supporting that tobacco products contained in the cigarette box contained tobacco, does the prosecution need to call expert scientific evidence?

[53] Furthermore, in finding that the prosecution has proven that the contents of the cigarette package was tobacco processed in the form of cigarettes, I have followed the reasoning of Pockele J. in Regina v. Chung, supra. In that regard, the totality of the evidence in this proceeding permits me to draw a prima facie inference that the subject package marked as “Canadian Classics” cigarettes, contained a tobacco product, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am able to conclude that the prosecution has proven that the said package contains tobacco, beyond a reasonable doubt. As stated in Chung, supra, in these circumstances it would be unreasonable to expect the prosecution to call expert scientific evidence to prove that the substance contained in the sealed cigarette box was, actually, tobacco.