An employer can often require in-person attendance, but not always. A long-standing, specifically approved remote work arrangement may become an enforceable term of employment.
Revoking it abruptly, without consent or reasonable notice, can amount to constructive dismissal. The result depends on the contract, the history of the arrangement, employer communications and any accommodation obligations
What happened in Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin, 2026 BCCA 199?
Tracy Parolin worked for Cressey Construction Corporation for approximately 18 years and ultimately became its Director of Marketing. Her employment terms were largely oral. She had long worked flexible hours to address family responsibilities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, she began working from home and continued doing so for roughly three years with the express approval of successive senior managers.
The arrangement was not simply tolerated. Management knew why it mattered to her, confirmed that her work was being completed, and helped establish her home office. In May 2023, during a compensation discussion, the employer directed her to return to the office from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. It did not obtain her agreement or provide reasonable advance notice of the change.
Ms. Parolin treated the direction as constructive dismissal. The trial judge agreed and awarded damages based on 19 months of reasonable notice. The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer’s appeal.
The Court’s key finding: remote work was an express contractual term
The Court of Appeal did not hold that every informal workplace practice automatically becomes part of an employment contract. Its conclusion was narrower and more fact-specific: the parties had expressly agreed, orally and through their conduct, that Ms. Parolin could work from home. That term was sufficiently clear and had become essential to the employment relationship.
By requiring full-time office attendance without her consent or reasonable notice, the employer unilaterally changed that essential term. A single substantial breach was enough to establish constructive dismissal; the employee did not also need to prove a pay cut, demotion or broader pattern of mistreatment.
The analysis reflects the constructive-dismissal framework established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10. In practical terms, the questions are whether the employer lacked authority to make the change and whether the change substantially altered an essential term, assessed objectively from the position of a reasonable employee.
Does this mean employees now have a permanent right to work from home?
No. The decision does not make remote work a guaranteed right and does not prevent employers from managing where work is performed. Many return-to-office directions will be lawful, particularly where the written contract or remote-work agreement clearly preserves the employer’s right to change work location or states that remote work is temporary, discretionary and subject to recall.
The legal risk increases where the facts look more like Parolin: the arrangement was individually negotiated or expressly approved; it continued for years; senior leaders repeatedly endorsed it; the employer helped implement it; the employee relied on it for significant personal or family needs; and no document preserved a clear recall right.
What employees should consider before refusing or resigning
An employee should not assume that an unwelcome return-to-office direction automatically permits them to refuse work or resign with severance. Constructive dismissal is highly fact-specific, and acting too quickly can allow an employer to characterize the departure as a voluntary resignation or the refusal as misconduct.
· Review the employment agreement, offer letter, remote-work policy and any later amendments.
· Collect emails, messages and meeting notes showing how remote work was approved, described and renewed.
· Identify whether the arrangement was company-wide and temporary, or individually negotiated and ongoing.
· Object promptly and carefully if you do not accept the change. Continued work without objection may eventually be treated as acceptance.
· Do not resign before obtaining legal advice. An employee may have to decide whether to remain at work under protest, negotiate a transition, request accommodation or advance a constructive-dismissal claim.
· Continue taking reasonable steps to limit losses if employment ends. The Court in Parolin also confirmed that mitigation is fact-specific and may, in an appropriate case, include genuine entrepreneurial efforts.
Employees facing a major unilateral change can review Pelsmakher Law’s constructive dismissal services and the firm’s guide to wrongful versus constructive dismissal.
Human rights and accommodation are a separate and critical issue
Contractual rights are only part of the analysis. A return-to-office rule may also adversely affect an employee because of disability, family status, religion, or another protected ground, under the Ontario Human Rights Code or other applicable human rights legislation. In those circumstances, the employer may have a duty to assess accommodation up to the point of undue hardship.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s accommodation guidance emphasizes that accommodation must be individualized and that the process of considering accommodation matters as much as the result. Remote work is not automatically the required accommodation, and employees are entitled to accommodation of disability-related needs—not necessarily their preferred solution. Employers must nevertheless investigate in good faith rather than apply an office-attendance rule mechanically.
Employees requesting accommodation should explain the workplace-related limitation and cooperate in the process. Employers should seek only the information reasonably needed to understand restrictions and possible solutions, protect confidentiality, and consider effective alternatives.
Practical implications for employers
A carefully planned return-to-office program can preserve operational flexibility and reduce legal risk. The key is to assess contractual and human-rights issues before announcing a uniform deadline.
· Audit written contracts, policy language and individual arrangements before issuing a mandate.
· Separate temporary pandemic practices from remote arrangements that were specifically promised or repeatedly renewed.
· Confirm whether contracts reserve the right to change work location, schedules or remote-work eligibility.
· Avoid relying on a new policy to override an existing contractual term. A policy generally cannot erase a negotiated promise on its own.
· Consider consent, incentives, phased implementation or reasonable working notice where a binding term may need to change.
· Create a process for individualized accommodation requests and train managers not to dismiss them as resistance to policy.
· Document business reasons, communications, employee responses and the alternatives considered.
· Review connected changes—hours, compensation, title, duties and reporting lines—because their cumulative effect may increase constructive-dismissal risk.
Employers can obtain assistance reviewing employment contracts and workplace policies, planning workforce changes and managing termination and severance risk.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can my employer require me to return to the office in Ontario?
Often, yes. The answer depends on the employment contract, policies, past communications, how long remote work continued and whether it was temporary or expressly agreed. Human-rights accommodation obligations may also apply.
Can a return-to-office mandate be constructive dismissal?
Potentially. A claim for constructive dismissal may arise where the employer unilaterally and substantially changes an essential contractual term, such as an established right to work remotely. Not every change in work location meets that threshold.
Does working from home for several years automatically make it permanent?
No. Duration is important but not decisive. Courts will examine what the parties actually said and did, including whether the arrangement was approved, temporary, discretionary, individually negotiated or subject to a recall right.
Should an employee quit after receiving a return-to-office direction?
Not without obtaining legal advice. Resigning too quickly can create serious risk. The employee should review the documents, preserve evidence, communicate any objection or accommodation need and assess available options before acting.
How can an employer change a remote-work arrangement more safely?
Start with the governing contract and policy. Depending on the circumstances, the employer may seek agreement, provide reasonable working notice, phase in the change and address accommodation requests individually. The correct approach is fact-specific.
Does this decision apply in Ontario?
A British Columbia Court of Appeal decision is persuasive, not binding, in Ontario. Its reasoning is nevertheless important because it applies established Canadian constructive-dismissal principles to modern remote-work arrangements.
The bottom line
Cressey Construction v. Parolin does not give every employee a permanent right to work from home. It does confirm that remote work can become an essential contractual term when it is clearly agreed, consistently supported and relied upon over time. Employers should therefore treat return-to-office planning as a contract and accommodation exercise, not merely a policy announcement.
Employees should avoid assuming either that they must accept every change or that they can safely resign as soon as a mandate is issued.
If a return-to-office direction may substantially change your employment relationship, or your organization is preparing to revise remote work arrangements, contact Pelsmakher Law for practical advice based on the specific facts.
