Remote and hybrid work arrangements continue to create legal risks for employers across Canada — especially when flexibility has become part of an employee’s established working relationship.
A recent decision from the British Columbia Court of Appeal highlights just how important it is for employers to carefully manage return-to-office expectations and workplace flexibility.
The Case
In Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin, 2026 BCCA 199, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia upheld a finding of constructive dismissal after an employer required a long-term employee to return to the office full-time without reasonable notice.
The employee, Tracy Parolin, had worked for the company for approximately 18 years. Over time, her work arrangement evolved to include flexible hours and eventually a work-from-home arrangement that accommodated childcare responsibilities and health concerns involving one of her children.
Although these arrangements were never formally documented in a written employment agreement, the employer had approved and supported them for years.
What Happened?
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Ms. Parolin began working remotely like many employees. However, unlike others who later returned to the office, she continued working from home with management’s approval.
The employer:
- knew about her childcare obligations;
- supported her remote arrangement;
- assisted with setting up her home office; and
- allowed the arrangement to continue for approximately three years.
In May 2023, Ms. Parolin met with management expecting to discuss a significant salary increase related to her Director of Marketing role.
Instead:
- she received only a modest salary increase;
- management suggested her role was more comparable to a Marketing Manager position; and
- she was directed to return to the office full-time, Monday to Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The employee viewed the change as a fundamental alteration to her employment relationship and treated it as constructive dismissal.
The Court’s Decision
The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge and dismissed the employer’s appeal.
The court found that the employee’s ability to work from home had become an essential term of her employment contract, even though it was oral rather than written.
Importantly, the court emphasized that:
- employment contracts can include oral terms;
- long-standing workplace practices can become enforceable contractual terms; and
- employers cannot unilaterally change essential terms without reasonable notice.
The court stated that removing the employee’s remote work arrangement had a significant impact on her ability to balance work and childcare responsibilities.
As a result, the forced return-to-office directive constituted constructive dismissal.
Mitigation: An Interesting Twist
Another notable aspect of the decision involved mitigation.
After leaving the company, Ms. Parolin did not immediately seek comparable employment. Instead, she pursued several business ventures related to real estate development, design, and educational technology.
The employer argued she failed to mitigate her damages by not actively searching for another job.
The court disagreed.
It found that:
- starting a business can be a reasonable mitigation effort;
- employees are entitled to consider their long-term interests; and
- the employer failed to prove comparable positions were actually available.
The court also noted that the alternative positions identified by the employer required primarily in-office work, which was particularly relevant given that the employee’s remote work arrangement was central to the constructive dismissal finding.
Key Takeaways for Employers
This case serves as an important reminder that flexibility arrangements can evolve into enforceable employment terms over time.
Employers should carefully review:
- remote and hybrid work arrangements;
- long-standing workplace accommodations;
- informal flexibility agreements; and
- return-to-office policies.
Before making significant changes to an employee’s work arrangement, employers should consider:
- whether the arrangement has become an established term of employment;
- whether reasonable notice should be provided;
- whether accommodation obligations may be triggered; and
- whether the change could expose the organization to constructive dismissal claims.
Final Thoughts
As remote and hybrid work continue to evolve, courts are increasingly recognizing that workplace flexibility is not always temporary or discretionary — especially when employers have consistently approved and supported those arrangements over time.
This decision reinforces the importance of clear employment agreements, carefully drafted remote work policies, and thoughtful implementation of return-to-office initiatives.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Citation: 2026 BCCA 199 (CanLII) | Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin | CanLII
