Conversion and the defence of abandonment

Dean v. Kotsopoulos, 2012 ONCA 143 deals with conversion and abandonment:

[16]       The trial judge correctly stated that conversion is a strict liability tort.  It is no defence that the wrongful interference with the goods of another was done innocently (Northstar Leasing Corp. v. Two Ten Spruce Corp., [2007] O.J. No. 1068 (S.C.J.) at paras. 13-14). 

[17]       Abandonment is a defence to an allegation of conversion.  The Ontario Court of Appeal adopted the following definition of abandonment in Simpson v. Gowers (1981), 121 D.L.R. (3d) 709 at para. 6:

"Abandonment" has been succinctly defined in R.A. Brown, in The Law of Personal Property, 2nd ed. (1955), at p. 9:

·        Abandonment occurs when there is "a giving up, a total desertion, and absolute relinquishment" of private goods by the former owner. It may arise when the owner with the specific intent of desertion and relinquishment casts away or leaves behind his property ...

[18]       A party who alleges abandonment bears the onus to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the owner intended to abandon the chattels in issue (Simpson at para. 9).   Abandonment is a question of fact, turning on factors such as the passage of time, the nature of the property, the conduct of the owner and the nature of transaction (Stewart v. Gustafson, [1998] 4 W.W.R. 695 (Sask. Q.B.) at para. 17).