What is the test for a breach of the Tobacco Control Act?

Moran v. Pyle dealt with tort law in which there is a requirement that to be an actionable wrong, there must be harm done. A breach of duty cannot be in the air -- it must also have caused harm. By contrast, the Act defines a “tobacco related wrong” as the breach, but does not require damage to have been caused. Instead, the Act builds in a presumption that if exposure to the product (the breach) can cause damage, then it did cause damage, and had it not been for the breach, the smoking would not have happened. The presumption is not just a procedural mechanism to prove there was damage, as would be the case for a defendant who was in British Columbia and committed a breach according to the statute; rather, the presumption operates to fill the gap in proving causation for foreign defendants who were never present in British Columbia.