judge’s reasons. As a result, it falls to this court to determine the
issue of abandonment based on the trial judge’s findings of fact.
 Abandonment is a defence to conversion. It occurs when
there is a “giving up, a total desertion, and absolute relinquishment” of one’s interest in chattels: Simpson v. Gowers (1981),
32 O.R. (2d) 385,  O.J. No. 2958, 121 D.L.R. (3d) 709
(C.A.), at p. 711 D.L.R., quoting R.A. Brown, The Law of Personal
Property, 2nd ed. (Callaghan & Co., 1955), at p. 9. The party
alleging abandonment bears the onus of proving, on a balance of
probabilities, an objective intent to abandon the chattels. The
determination of whether there is a sufficient intent to abandon
is a question of fact governed by factors such as the length of
time, nature of the chattels, conduct of the parties and context
of the case: 1083994 Ontario Inc. v. Kotsopoulos,  O.J. No.
1012, 2012 ONCA 143, at paras. 17-18.
 Here, the respondent attempted to either negotiate a sale
of his assets to the appellant or a time he could retrieve them.
The respondent’s lawyer sent letters shortly after the termination of the lease indicating the respondent intended to remove
the chattels. The respondent attempted to retrieve the chattels
multiple times, each time being thwarted by the appellant.
As such, there were no facts to suggest abandonment of chattels
or trade fixtures in the instant case.
 However, with respect to trade fixtures, the appellant also
submits a tenant may not remove them after a lease ends and
the tenant has given up possession.4 I disagree.
 There are exceptions to the appellant’s otherwise correct
articulation of the general time limit in which a tenant may
remove trade fixtures. One such exception is where a lease is
for an uncertain term or where the landlord’s actions create the
circumstance that the tenant had insufficient time to remove
its trade fixtures. In those cases, absent a contract otherwise,
a tenant may remove its trade fixtures within a reasonable
period of time following the end of a lease and after possession
4 The appellant also submits that leasehold improvements may not be
removed post-tenancy. However, leasehold improvements may never be
removed by a tenant, absent a contract otherwise, since they become
part of the land. Moreover, the Nova Scotia cases of Frank Georges Island
Investments Ltd. v. Ocean Farmers Ltd.,  N.S.J. No. 75, 182 N.S.R.
(2d) 201, 2000 CarswellNS 74 (S.C.), at paras. 69-73 (in Chambers);
and Carabin v. Offman,  N.S.J. No. 434, 55 D.L.R. (4th) 135, 1988
CarswellNS 86 (C.A.), at pp. 137 and 151 D.L.R., cited by the appellant
do not support the appellant’s proposition as those cases concerned trade