(1) The standard of review
 The Supreme Court set out the guiding principles on
standard of review for appeals from judicial decisions in Housen
v. Nikolaisen,  2 S.C.R. 235,  S.C.J. No. 31, 2002
SCC 33. Questions of law are reviewable for correctness, and
questions of fact or questions of mixed fact and law are reviewable for palpable and overriding error, unless there is an extricable question of law: Housen, at paras. 8, 10 and 36.
 The identification of the correct legal standard or test is
an extricable question of law, but the application of a legal
standard to a set of facts is a question of mixed fact and law:
Housen, at paras. 27 and 31. I address the standard of review
applicable to each issue in the reasons below with this framework in mind.
(2) Did the trial judge err by finding the structural assets
were trade fixtures?
 Fixtures are assets that are sufficiently affixed to real
property such that they are considered permanent in nature
and part of the land. Whether fixtures become part of the land
depends on the degree and object of annexation to the land:
Stack v. T. Eaton Co. (1902), 4 O.L.R. 335,  O.J. No. 155,
1902 CarswellOnt 399 (Div. Ct.). This case concerns the fate of
fixtures upon termination of a lease. The general rule is that fixtures remain with the land following the end of a tenancy; but
not all fixtures fall within this rule.
 Trade fixtures are assets that are affixed to leased premises by a tenant for trade or commercial purposes. Courts have
consistently held that tenants are presumptively allowed to
remove trade fixtures at the end of a tenancy so long as
the removal does not materially damage the premises: 859587
Ontario Ltd. v. Starmark Property Management Ltd. (1997),
34 O.R. (3d) 43,  O.J. No. 2474, 1997 CarswellOnt 2308
(Gen. Div.), at p. 54 O.R., at para. 31, affd (1998), 40 O.R. (3d)
481,  O.J. No. 3022, 1998 CarswellOnt 2937 (C.A.);
Caledonia Service Station Inc. v. Cango Inc.,  O.J. No.
1045, 2011 ONCA 184, at para. 14; Newfoundland and Labrador
Housing Corp. v. Humby,  N.J. No. 20, 2013 NLCA 7,
per Rowe J.A. (as he then was), at paras. 22-27. This exception
— that trade fixtures do not remain with the land post-tenancy
— has a long history in the common law: Warner v. Don (1896),
26 S.C.R. 388,  S.C.J. No. 44, 1896 CarswellNS 102,
at pp. 391-92 S.C.R., at para. 8; Stack, at p. 338 O.L.R.; and