C. Issues on Appeal
 The appellant raises the following issues:
(a) Did the trial judge err by classifying certain assets as trade
fixtures or chattels, as opposed to fixtures or leasehold
(b) Did the trial judge err by holding that the appellant unlawfully distrained the respondent’s trade fixtures or chattels?
(c) Did the trial judge err by failing to consider whether the
respondent had abandoned its chattels?
(d) Did the trial judge err by awarding exemplary damages in
addition to compensatory damages?
D. The Appellant’s Position
 The appellant submits the trial judge erred by classifying
the following assets (the “structural assets”) as trade fixtures:
(a) a driving range deck worth $50,499.81;
(b) a deck canopy worth $23,286.58;
(c) a ball shack worth $7,046.56;
(d) driving range barrier net poles worth $32,264.23; and
(e) driving range barrier nets worth $31,747.65.
 The appellant describes the deck as a 9,000-square-foot
wooden platform,3 with a permanently attached ball shack,
covered by a steel canopy. It was affixed to the land with
pressure-treated wood beams and a cement base. In addition,
water and electrical wiring ran through the structure. The
60-foot-high barrier poles were drilled 5 feet into the ground
and secured with steel anchors. The nets were fastened to the
poles with steel clips and cables and were not taken down during winter.
 The appellant submits that its distraint of the respondent’s assets was allowed by s. 41 of the CTA and further argues
the structural assets were not removable trade fixtures. In
the appellant’s view, the distinction between a removable trade
3 Based on the diagram filed in the trial record and in the appeal book and
compendium, volume 2, tab 17(F), the square footage of the deck appears
to be approximately 7,000 square feet.