The workplace has changed significantly since the COVID-19 pandemic. Remote and hybrid work have become a regular part of employment for many Canadian workers, and in some cases, working from home has continued for years.
But what happens when an employee who has been working remotely for an extended period is suddenly told to return to the office full-time?
A recent decision from the British Columbia Court of Appeal has brought this question into focus. In Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin, 2026 BCCA 199, the Court upheld a finding that an established work-from-home arrangement had become an enforceable term of the employee’s employment contract. The Court also upheld the finding that requiring the employee to return to the office without reasonable notice amounted to constructive dismissal.
The decision does not mean that every return-to-office requirement will amount to constructive dismissal. Whether a workplace change is legally significant depends on the employment contract, the history of the working arrangement, the employer’s contractual rights and the circumstances of the particular case.
For Ontario employees and employers, the decision provides an opportunity to look more closely at how remote-work arrangements can become part of an employment relationship.
The discussion in this article draws on the Ontario Bar Association’s coverage of the case and related employment-law commentary, while focusing on the principles relevant to Ontario workplaces.
What Happened in Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin?
The case involved an employee who had worked for Cressey Construction Corporation for approximately 18 years and held the position of Director of Marketing.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, she began working from home. Unlike many temporary pandemic arrangements, her remote work continued after the immediate effects of the pandemic had passed.
The employee also had family circumstances that supported her continued work-from-home arrangement.
In May 2023, the employer instructed her to return to the workplace on a full-time basis.
The employee took the position that the employer’s decision represented a fundamental change to her employment arrangement and treated the change as a constructive dismissal.
The trial court agreed.
The employer appealed, arguing that the trial judge had incorrectly found that working from home was part of the employment contract and that requiring the employee to return to the office amounted to a contractual breach.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s decision.
The Ontario Bar Association has also discussed the decision in its Labour and Employment Law Section’s coverage of the case.
Why Was the Remote Work Arrangement Important?
One of the most important aspects of the case was the Court’s treatment of the employee’s work-from-home arrangement.
The arrangement was not simply viewed as an informal workplace benefit that the employer could withdraw whenever it wanted.
The Court accepted that the ability to work from home had become an express oral term of the employee’s employment contract.
This is important because employment contracts are not always limited to the written document signed when an employee starts a job.
Depending on the circumstances, contractual terms can also arise from verbal agreements, representations made by the employer and the parties’ conduct over the course of the employment relationship.
In Parolin, the Court found that the established remote-work arrangement had become an essential term of the employment relationship and could not simply be withdrawn without reasonable notice.
What Is Constructive Dismissal?
Constructive dismissal is different from a traditional termination.
In a traditional dismissal, the employer directly ends the employment relationship.
Constructive dismissal can occur when an employer makes a substantial unilateral change to an essential term of an employee’s contract, or when the employer’s conduct demonstrates that it no longer intends to be bound by the employment agreement.
The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the legal framework for constructive dismissal in Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10.
The Court identified two broad situations in which constructive dismissal may arise.
The first involves a unilateral breach of an express or implied contractual term that substantially changes an essential condition of employment.
The second involves conduct by the employer that demonstrates an intention no longer to be bound by the employment contract.
This means that an employee does not necessarily have to receive a formal termination letter for constructive dismissal to become an issue.
A substantial unilateral change to an important employment term can potentially have similar legal consequences.
Can Returning to the Office Amount to Constructive Dismissal?
Potentially, but not automatically.
An employer may have the contractual right to determine where an employee works. Some employment agreements specifically identify the workplace or give the employer flexibility to change the location of work.
The legal question becomes more complicated when an employee has worked remotely for a long period and the arrangement may have become part of the employment contract.
Several factors may be relevant, including:
- What the original employment agreement says
- Whether remote work was discussed during hiring
- Whether the employee was promised a remote or hybrid arrangement
- How long the employee worked remotely
- Whether management consistently approved the arrangement
- Whether the arrangement was confirmed through emails or other communications
- Whether the employee relied on the arrangement
- Whether the employer has a contractual right to change the workplace
- How much notice was provided
- Whether other important employment terms were changed at the same time
The presence of a return-to-office policy alone does not answer these questions.
What Does This Mean for Ontario Employees?
The Cressey Construction decision comes from British Columbia, so it is important not to treat it as binding Ontario law.
Ontario courts are not required to follow a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
However, the case can still provide useful insight into a broader employment-law issue: whether a long-standing workplace arrangement can become part of an employee’s contractual rights.
Ontario has also had its own cases examining remote work as a potential employment term. The Ontario Bar Association’s Labour and Employment Law Section has discussed recent Ontario decisions involving this issue.
Source: Ontario Bar Association – Remote Work as an Essential Term of Employment
For Ontario employees, the important point is that the legal analysis should focus on their own employment relationship.
An employee should consider the actual contract, communications with the employer, workplace policies and how the remote arrangement operated over time.
When Can Remote Work Become Part of an Employment Contract?
There is no single rule that determines when remote work becomes a contractual term.
The circumstances surrounding the arrangement are important.
For example, evidence may include:
- An employment offer that promised remote work
- Emails confirming that the employee could work from home
- A written remote-work or hybrid-work agreement
- Company policies
- Repeated management approval
- A long-standing pattern of remote employment
- Communications between the employee and management
- Evidence that the employee relied on the arrangement when making important decisions
A long-standing arrangement may carry more contractual significance than a short-term or clearly temporary work-from-home arrangement.
However, the length of time alone does not automatically establish a contractual right.
The entire employment relationship needs to be considered.
What If the Employment Contract Says the Employee Must Work in the Office?
The wording of the employment contract can make a significant difference.
If an agreement clearly states that an employee is required to work at a particular location, or gives the employer a contractual right to determine the workplace, the employer may have greater flexibility to require employees to attend the office.
On the other hand, if the parties subsequently agreed to a different arrangement, or the employer’s conduct created an established contractual term, the analysis may be different.
This is why employees should look at the actual terms of their agreement rather than assuming that a return-to-office policy is automatically lawful or unlawful.
What Should Employees Do After a Return-to-Office Announcement?
If your employer has suddenly changed your work arrangement, avoid making an immediate decision without understanding the potential consequences.
Review Your Employment Agreement
Look for terms dealing with:
- Workplace location
- Remote work
- Hybrid work
- Relocation
- Working hours
- Employer discretion
- Changes to employment conditions
Keep Relevant Documents
Keep copies of emails, messages, policies and other communications concerning your remote or hybrid arrangement.
These records may help establish how the arrangement began and how it operated over time.
Ask for the New Requirement in Writing
If the return-to-office requirement was communicated verbally, you may wish to request written confirmation of the new arrangement.
A written record can help clarify exactly what the employer is changing.
Do Not Immediately Resign
A major change to your employment circumstances does not automatically mean that you have been constructively dismissed.
Resigning without obtaining appropriate legal advice may affect your potential legal rights.
If you believe an employer has fundamentally changed an important term of your employment, consider speaking with a lawyer before making a decision.
What Should Employers Consider Before Ending Remote Work?
The issue is not limited to employees.
Employers considering a return-to-office policy should review existing employment arrangements before implementing significant changes.
This can include reviewing:
- Employment agreements
- Remote-work agreements
- Hybrid-work policies
- Workplace policies
- Previous communications
- Past workplace practices
- Relocation clauses
- Workplace-location provisions
- Individual employee circumstances
A company-wide return-to-office policy may not necessarily resolve the contractual rights of every employee.
An employee who was specifically hired to work remotely may have a different contractual arrangement from an employee whose contract always identified an office as their workplace.
Can an Employer Change an Employee’s Workplace Without Notice?
There is no universal answer.
An employer’s ability to change an employee’s workplace depends on the employment agreement, the established employment relationship and the circumstances of the proposed change.
Employers generally have management rights, but those rights operate within the terms of the employment contract.
If an employer makes a unilateral and substantial change to an essential contractual term, the change may raise constructive dismissal concerns.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s constructive dismissal framework focuses on whether the employer has breached an express or implied term and substantially changed an essential part of the employment relationship.
For this reason, the specific facts of each case matter.
What Other Changes Can Raise Constructive Dismissal Issues?
A return-to-office requirement is only one example.
Depending on the circumstances, constructive dismissal claims can involve substantial changes to:
- Salary
- Commission
- Job duties
- Position or status
- Working hours
- Workplace location
- Benefits
- Reporting structure
- Other important employment terms
The key issue is not simply whether something changed.
The question is whether the change was substantial enough to amount to a breach of the employment contract or whether the employer’s conduct demonstrated that it no longer intended to be bound by the agreement.
What Evidence May Matter in a Constructive Dismissal Claim?
Employment disputes are often heavily dependent on documentation.
Depending on the circumstances, useful records may include:
- Employment contracts
- Offer letters
- Emails
- Workplace policies
- Remote-work approvals
- Hybrid-work agreements
- Performance reviews
- Messages between employees and management
- Compensation records
- Communications concerning changes to the workplace
Employees should preserve relevant documents and communications rather than deleting them.
Employers should also maintain appropriate records showing how workplace arrangements were communicated and implemented.
What Is the Difference Between Constructive Dismissal and Wrongful Dismissal?
The two concepts are related but are not identical.
Wrongful dismissal generally concerns the termination of employment without the notice or compensation required by the employment contract and applicable law.
Constructive dismissal can arise where the employer does not formally terminate the employee but substantially breaches the employment agreement through its conduct or a unilateral change.
A constructive dismissal can therefore lead to a wrongful-dismissal claim, depending on the circumstances.
Because the legal consequences can be significant, employees should obtain advice before deciding that they have been constructively dismissed.
How Can an Employment Lawyer Help?
Employment disputes can involve contractual terms, workplace policies, evidence and questions about reasonable notice.
An experienced lawyer can review the employment agreement and the circumstances surrounding a workplace change to help determine what legal issues may be involved.
TM Law Professional Corporation provides employment law services relating to employment disputes, wrongful termination and employment contract matters.
If your employer has introduced a significant change to your workplace arrangement, obtaining legal advice can help you understand your options before taking further action.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can working from home become part of an employment contract?
Yes, depending on the circumstances. A remote-work arrangement may become a contractual term through an express agreement or through the parties’ conduct and established practices.
Can an employer force an employee to return to the office?
An employer may have the right to require employees to work from the office, depending on the employment contract and circumstances. However, a substantial unilateral change to an established contractual term may raise constructive dismissal issues.
Does returning to the office automatically mean constructive dismissal?
No. A return-to-office requirement does not automatically constitute constructive dismissal. The employee’s contract, established work arrangement, employer’s rights and circumstances surrounding the change all need to be considered.
Does the B.C. Court of Appeal decision apply to Ontario?
No. Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin is a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal and is not binding on Ontario courts. It can nevertheless provide useful insight into the contractual issues that can arise from long-standing remote-work arrangements.
Should I resign if my employer changes my work location?
You should consider obtaining legal advice before resigning. Whether a workplace change amounts to constructive dismissal depends on the specific circumstances, and resigning can have significant legal consequences.
Can an employer change an employment contract?
An employer may have some ability to change workplace arrangements depending on the terms of the employment agreement. However, a unilateral and substantial change to an essential contractual term may create legal issues.
What should I do if I believe I have been constructively dismissed?
Keep your employment documents and relevant communications, avoid making rushed decisions, and seek legal advice about your specific circumstances before resigning or taking other significant action.
Final Thoughts
The Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin decision highlights an issue that many employers and employees may now face as workplaces continue to evolve.
A remote-work arrangement that began as a temporary measure may, depending on the circumstances, become an established part of an employment relationship. That does not mean every return-to-office mandate will amount to constructive dismissal, particularly in Ontario.
Instead, the employment contract, workplace history, communications between the parties and circumstances surrounding the change should all be considered.
For employees facing a significant change to their work arrangement, understanding their contractual rights before making a decision can be important.
If you believe that a major change to your employment terms may have affected your rights, consider seeking legal advice about your situation.
Sources
- Ontario Bar Association – When “Back to the Office” Becomes Constructive Dismissal: Lessons from the B.C. Court of Appeal
- Ontario Bar Association – Remote Work as an Essential Term of Employment: Lessons from Recent Ontario Decisions
- Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin, 2026 BCCA 199
- Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10
This article is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Employment law can vary depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
