land, are never subject to the landlord’s remedy of distress in
859587 Ontario Ltd. v. Starmark Property Management Ltd.
(1998), 40 O.R. (3d) 481,  O.J. No. 3022 (C.A.), supra, at
pp. 487-88 O.R., at paras. 13-15, affg (1997), 34 O.R. (3d) 43,
 O.J. No. 2474 (Gen. Div.), supra, at p. 54 O.R. As Doherty
J.A. explained in Starmark Property, at para. 9, this is because
“distraint runs against the tenant’s property found on the land
and not against the land itself”. Trade fixtures may only be
distrained when they have been severed from the land and
resume their nature as chattels. The ratio from Starmark Property alone disposes of the appellant’s argument that it was entitled to distrain the structural assets.
 The trial judge did not err in concluding the appellant
engaged in an unlawful distraint in this case.
 Nevertheless, the appellant argues that certain assets
classified by the trial judge as trade fixtures were in fact chattels. The appellant submits that it did not convert the respondent’s assets because they were abandoned. I turn then to analyze
(5) Did the trial judge misclassify certain chattels as trade
 The list of assets in Schedule A includes
— six custom refuse containers;
— eight outdoor bench tables;
— a number of flower pots and planters;
— a desk and chair; and
— 35,000 recovered golf balls.
 As noted, one of the elements of the legal test for a trade
fixture is that the asset must be affixed to the ground. It is not
surprising that the evidence indicated these assets were not
affixed to the ground in any manner. The respondent concedes
the trial judge erroneously misclassified these assets as trade
fixtures instead of chattels.
(6) Did the trial judge err by not finding the respondent’s
assets were abandoned?
 The appellant submits the respondent abandoned its
assets by not removing them before December 6, 2007. Abandonment was raised at trial but was not addressed in the trial