When the owners of the 3 adjacent homes destroyed in the 2023 Clearwater Crossing fire began exploring their legal options, one theory presented itself with seductive simplicity: if a tenant living in the rental property on 8th Avenue had caused the fire through careless conduct—perhaps through improper use of a space heater, negligent disposal of smoking materials, or storage of flammable substances in violation of lease terms—then surely the residential property owner on 8th Avenue should answer for that conduct as the person who placed the tenant in a position to cause harm. This reasoning reflects an intuitive sense of justice, one grounded in the belief that those who profit from renting property should bear the risks that flow from their tenants' occupation. Yet Alberta law draws sharp distinctions between different categories of legal relationships, and the landlord-tenant relationship occupies a fundamentally different position than the employer-employee relationship that typically grounds vicarious liability claims. Understanding why this distinction matters, and what it means for the affected neighbours seeking compensation for their destroyed homes, requires a careful examination of how Alberta courts approach the doctrine of vicarious liability and why that doctrine has historically resisted extension to landlords for the tortious acts of their tenants.