(c) Standard of review on appeals of damage awards
 A trial judge’s damages award is owed considerable def-
erence: Rougemont, at para. 41. In Naylor Group Inc. v. Ellis-
Don Construction Ltd.,  2 S.C.R. 943,  S.C.J. No.
56, 2001 SCC 58, at para. 80, the Supreme Court held that
an appellate court should only intervene in the award of dam-
. . . the trial judge made an error of principle or law, or misapprehended
the evidence, or it could be shown there was no evidence on which the
trial judge could have reached his or her conclusion, or the trial judge
failed to consider relevant factors in the assessment of damages, or
considered irrelevant factors, or otherwise, in the result, made “a palpably
incorrect” or “wholly erroneous” assessment of the damages. Where one
or more of these conditions are met, however, the appellate court is
obliged to interfere.
 The failure to apply the compensation principle underlying private law damages is an error of law: Barber, at para. 86.
Here, the trial judge’s award of both compensatory and disgorgement damages absent factual findings that support such
an exceptional order resulted in double recovery for the respondent. As a result, the trial judge’s award of damages is reviewable
(d) The award of “exemplary” damages in this case
 The trial judge stated, at paras. 32 and 34-35 of his rea-
In addition to this amount, the plaintiffs are claiming unjust enrichment,
loss of use, general damages, punitive damages, exemplary damages, tres-
pass and conversion as the defendants continued to use the trade fixtures of
the plaintiffs for a period of approximately eight years. Mr. Panasiuk alleges
he did not make money and ultimately the golf course has closed but the fact
is he was using the plaintiffs’ equipment illegally.
. . . . .
Mr. Panasiuk alleges that the golf course, because of the relocation of certain of the holes to accommodate the driving range, had an adverse impact
on the golf course itself which ultimately ended up in it being closed but as
I have indicated previously it was he who selected the location of the driving
range and it was he who terminated the lease and used the driving range
equipment and structures illegally for his own purpose.
In my opinion, the plaintiffs were entitled to additional damages and that
$80,000 is the appropriate dollar amount for the exemplary damages claim
being $10,000 per year for eight years use.