The detective work of Sanderson et al. associates a Powassan virus infection in British Columbia with acquisition in Quebec.(1) Consideration of the known zoonoses that could be acquired in British Columbia would complicate the differential diagnosis for the clinical presentation that was described were it not for the virological studies.(2) The history of tick bite, tick acquisition and speciation, and the viral genome detection were obvious clues to the likelihood of acquisition in eastern Canada. If the history of travel and tick bite were not apparent and Powassan virus serology was yet highly suggestive of infection, would the question have arisen as to whether the infection could have been acquired in British Columbia? The latter might have been further supported by an incubation period as short as one week.