JURIANSZ J.A.: — Hydeaway Golf Club, incorporated as
375445 Ontario Limited, and Nicholas Panasiuk Jr. (collectively,
the “appellant”) leased land to Performance Plus Golf Academy
and D & D Electric, incorporated as 2105582 Ontario Ltd.
and 627496 Ontario Ltd. (collectively, the “respondent”), in fall
2006 under an oral agreement. The respondent constructed and
operated a driving range on the leased land. The respondent fell
into arrears of rent and the appellant terminated the lease on
December 6, 2007.
 The respondent sought damages for the appellant’s unlawful distraint and conversion of its trade fixtures and chattels.
The trial judge held that all of the claimed assets were trade fixtures and that the appellant was liable to the respondent for
compensatory and exemplary damages. On appeal, the appellant
argues the trial judge erred by finding liability for conversion,
and in any event, the damage award was excessive.
 For the reasons that follow, I would reject the appellant’s
attack on the finding of liability, but would allow the appeal in
part and set aside the exemplary damages award.
A. Factual Background
 The appellant owned and operated a golf course near
Tecumseh, Ontario. Around March 2006, the parties began negotiating a lease for a portion of the appellant’s land, which
adjoined the golf course but was substantially empty and unde-veloped at the time. The respondent intended to construct and
operate a driving range on the leased lands.
 In May through June 2006, the respondent’s lawyer
prepared drafts of a commercial lease. Ultimately, however,
the parties did not execute a written lease. The parties agreed
orally that rent would be $3,000 a month, except during winter
when it would be $2,000 a month. The tenancy was at will. The
lease was governed by the Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. L.7 (“CTA”) and the Statute of Frauds, R.S.O. 1990,
 The respondent invested approximately $200,000 to construct the driving range and purchase the necessary equipment.
The driving range went into operation around September 2006.
The parties’ relationship deteriorated and the respondent failed
to pay rent for September, October and November 2007.
 On November 16, 2007, the appellant gave the respondent
a notice of default. Then, ten days later, on November 26, 2007,
the appellant served a notice of termination of the lease. The