of the premises has been given up: Devine v. Callery (1917),
40 O.L.R. 505,  O.J. No. 121 (C.A.) and Elliot Mortgage &
Investment Co. v. Savage,  B.C.J. No. 1153, 14 B.C.L.R.
 The appellant terminated the lease with ten days’ notice
in this case. The appellant also prevented the respondent from
removing the disputed assets on December 6, 2007 by calling the
OPP. As such, the respondent did not abandon its trade fixtures
and was entitled to return to the premises to remove them
within a reasonable time following the end of the lease and after
it vacated the premises.
(7) Did the trial judge err in awarding exemplary damages?
 As alluded to above, I would set aside the order for exemplary damages. To explain my analysis of this issue, I will first
review some general legal principles concerning private law
damages before turning to the appropriate measure of damages
for conversion in this case.
(a) Compensatory purpose of private law damages
 The fundamental principle underlying private law remedies is restitutio in integrum. Private law damages are meant to
be compensatory. In tort, the aim is to restore the plaintiff to the
position he or she occupied before the tort occurred. Private law
damages are generally not intended to punish the defendant,
nor are they intended to place the plaintiff in a position better
than the status quo ex ante: Milina v. Bartsch,  B.C.J. No.
2762, 49 B.C.L.R. (2d) 33 (S.C.), at p. 78 B.C.L.R., per McLachlin
J. (as she then was), affd  B.C.J. No. 1833, 49 B.C.L.R.
(2d) 99 (C.A.); Barber v. Vrozos,  O.J. No. 3697, 2010
ONCA 570, at para. 86; and Rougemont Capital Inc. v. Computer
Associates International Inc.,  O.J. No. 5786, 2016 ONCA
847, at para. 44.
 Of course, as the Supreme Court held in IBM Canada
Limited v. Waterman,  3 S.C.R. 985,  S.C.J. No. 70,
2013 SCC 70, at para. 36, there are exceptions to the general
compensatory principle of damages in certain circumstances.
Some cases call for the additional award of exemplary damages.
 Exemplary damages could take the form of punitive
damages, which are designed to address retribution, deterrence
and denunciation of malicious, oppressive or high-handed conduct: Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co.,  1 S.C.R. 595, 
S.C.J. No. 19, 2002 SCC 18, at paras. 36 and 43; and Fidler v.
Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada,  2 S.C.R. 3, 
S.C.J. No. 30, 2006 SCC 30, at paras. 61-63. Other cases may