When the property owners at Clearwater, British Columbia received the municipal invoice demanding reimbursement for fire department costs incurred during the December 2021 well control incident, they confronted a painful reality that many tort claimants eventually face: the categories of loss they believe ought to be compensable do not always align with the categories of loss a court will recognize. The 3-day industrial well control and cementing response had generated expenses exceeding the original contract price for the water well itself, and the property owners had assumed throughout their negligence claim against both the water well drilling contractor and the residential developer that these emergency response costs would form part of any damages award. The denial of their fire remediation claim against both defendants, combined with the municipality's subsequent decision to levy those costs directly against them as the registered property owners, illustrates the stringent requirements British Columbia courts impose when plaintiffs seek to quantify damages flowing from an alleged breach of the standard of care. Understanding why certain heads of damage succeed while others fail requires close attention to the principles governing remoteness, the distinction between recoverable and irrecoverable categories of loss, and the evidentiary burdens that attach to each component of a damages claim.