Richardson v. Equitable Fire Insurance Co.,  O.R. 493,
 O.J. No. 668,  3 D.L.R. 583, 1953 CarswellOnt 67
(C.A.), at p. 586 D.L.R. (C.A.), at para. 8.
 Importantly, as this court held in Bank of Nova Scotia v.
Mitz (1979), 27 O.R. (2d) 250,  O.J. No. 4491, 106 D.L.R.
(3d) 534, 1979 CarswellOnt 741 (C.A.), at p. 538 D.L.R., at
para. 11, there is a distinction in the analysis depending on
whether the attempted removal of the disputed asset occurs in
the context of a lease versus the sale of real property. In the
former case, there appears to be a presumption that a tenant
would not have an objective intent to affix an asset on a
permanent basis such that it would become part of the real
property at the end of the lease: Bank of Nova Scotia, at
pp. 538-39 D.L.R. In other words, the object of annexation is
presumptively not one of permanence.
 The jurisprudence demonstrates that the determination
of whether an asset is a fixture or trade fixture upon termination of a lease is highly fact-specific. For example, in Webb v.
Frank Bevis Ltd.,  1 All E.R. 247 (E.W.C.A.), the English
Court of Appeal held that a 6,750-square-foot shed was a trade
fixture and removable by the tenant at the end of the lease. The
shed in that case was covered with a corrugated iron roof that
rested on wooden posts. The wooden posts, in turn, were affixed
to a concrete floor — but not embedded in the concrete. The
court held that the shed could be taken apart without damage to
the leased premises and was a trade fixture. By contrast, the
concrete floor was not a trade fixture since it could not be
removed without damage to the leased premises.
 Webb was implicitly affirmed by the United Kingdom
House of Lords in Elitestone Ltd. v. Morris,  1 W.L.R. 687
(U.K.H.L.), at p. 691. In Elitestone, the House of Lords was
asked to determine whether a bungalow constructed on leased
real property was a chattel or fixture that was part of the land.
The House of Lords affirmed the trial judge’s conclusion that the
bungalow was part of the land because such determinations
depended on the facts of each case: Elitestone, per Lord
Berwick, at p. 692; and per Lord Clyde, at p. 696. It was also
significant that the tenant claiming the bungalow did not construct the bungalow. It existed prior to the tenant occupying the
 Justice Rowe of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal (as he
then was) found Webb and Elitestone to be persuasive authorities in Humby. Humby concerned a “Butler building”, which was
a pre-engineered 1,500-square-foot steel-frame building. It was
built by the tenant and supported by metal beams that were