These reasons do not provide any basis for an award of
punitive or disgorgement damages. The trial judge did not find
the conversion was malicious or high-handed in a manner constituting a marked departure from ordinary standards of decent
behaviour. Rather, the record shows that the appellant had an
honest belief that the structural assets did in fact become part of
the land and should have remained with the land.
 Furthermore, it is not clear whether the trial judge’s
“exemplary” damages order was meant to be a punitive damages
award. The language he used is more consistent with an award
of disgorgement damages that was measured based on the
appellant’s gain from the unlawful use of the converted assets.
However, the respondent did not specifically claim disgorgement
damages in its amended statement of claim and the trial judge
made no factual findings that supports an order of both disgorgement damages and compensatory damages. As such, it was
an error to award the additional $80,000 for the conversion of
the respondent’s assets even if the trial judge intended to award
(e) Propriety of the “exemplary” damages in this case
 The record before this court shows the instant case was
framed in terms of conversion. Moreover, the trial judge’s reasons, at paras. 20-22 and 29, indicate he considered the case to
be one of conversion and not detinue. As such, the applicable
measure of damages was the market value of the converted
assets as of the date of conversion.5 The trial judge found the
market value of those assets to be $188,033.17 and awarded
compensatory damages in this amount.
 The trial judge should not have awarded the additional
$80,000 in “exemplary” damages. The respondent’s witness’ testimony demonstrated that the respondent wanted the return of
the assets because the respondent intended to sell them to
a buyer. In fact, the respondent’s witness testified that the
respondent wanted to sell certain assets to the appellant. Therefore, the $188,033.17 damages award, reflecting the market
value of the converted assets, fully compensated the respondent
in this case.
5 The trial judge’s award of damages would have also been incorrect assuming he considered the claim to be for detinue. In that case, he should have
deducted eight years’ worth of depreciation from the value of the disputed
assets instead of one and a half.