Return to Office in BC After Years of Remote Work: When Can It Become Constructive Dismissal?
Employment Law · British Columbia · 2026 Court of Appeal Update
After several years of remote work, a return-to-office email can feel less like a scheduling change than a change to the job itself. The arrangement may have started during the pandemic, but over time it became part of ordinary working life: your manager knew where you were working, meetings and deadlines continued, and perhaps you were told directly that remote work could continue.
The law does not treat every return-to-office direction the same way. For some employees, remote work remained temporary or was governed by a policy the employer could change. For others, the arrangement became more settled and may have formed part of the employment agreement. The difficult part is knowing which situation you are in before you respond.
The BC Court of Appeal's 2026 decision in Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin is important because it confirms that remote work can, in the right circumstances, become an enforceable term of employment even when it was not written into the original contract. It does not give every long-term remote employee a permanent right to work from home, and it does not mean that every return-to-office order is constructive dismissal.
If you brought me an RTO email, I would not begin with whether the commute is inconvenient or whether the policy feels fair. I would begin with the employment relationship: what you and your employer actually agreed about where you would work, how that arrangement developed, and what your employer had the right to change.
Can a Return-to-Office Order Be Constructive Dismissal in BC?
It can be, but the answer depends on the employment arrangement that existed before the employer imposed the change. In Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin, 2026 BCCA 199, the Court of Appeal upheld a constructive-dismissal finding after an employer required a long-serving employee to return to the office five days a week. In that particular relationship, working from home had become an express oral and essential term of the employment agreement.
The result turned on more than the length of time Parolin had worked remotely. She had specifically asked to continue working from home, senior management agreed, and the arrangement continued with the employer's knowledge and support. When the employer later removed that arrangement without her agreement or reasonable notice, the Court accepted that an essential term of the relationship had been substantially changed.
Another employee may have a very different contract and history. A written work-location clause, a temporary remote-work policy, an employer's reserved right to change location, or a pattern of regular office attendance may point in another direction. The useful question is not simply how long you have worked from home, but whether remote work had actually become part of your employment agreement.
What Cressey Really Tells Employees Working Remotely
Tracy Parolin had worked for Cressey Construction Corporation for approximately 18 years. Her employment terms were largely oral. She began working remotely during the pandemic and later specifically confirmed with senior management that she could continue doing so. The arrangement then continued for roughly three years.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's conclusion that working from home had become an express oral term of Parolin's employment agreement. That matters because many employment relationships have evolved since the original contract was signed. A written agreement remains important, but later conversations, approvals and the way the parties actually conduct the relationship can also help establish what they agreed to.
In 2023, Cressey required Parolin to return to the office full-time. Because remote work had become an essential term of her employment, removing it without her agreement or reasonable notice was a serious contractual change. The Court upheld the finding that she had been constructively dismissed.
The case is significant, but it is narrower than some headlines suggest. It did not decide that several years of remote work automatically creates a permanent right to continue, nor did it establish that every RTO mandate amounts to constructive dismissal. Parmar v. Tribe Management Inc. is sometimes mentioned in the same pandemic-era discussion, but it should be used carefully. Remote and hybrid work formed part of the factual background in Parmar, while the case itself concerned an unpaid leave imposed under a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. It is useful context for distinguishing policy-driven pandemic work arrangements from the individual agreement at issue in Cressey, rather than a direct return-to-office precedent.
When I review an RTO problem, I am less interested in the label "remote worker" than in the history behind it. I want to know how the arrangement began, what management said about it, whether it was temporary or ongoing, and whether both sides came to treat it as part of the job. That history is often where the real legal question begins.
What I Would Look At in Your Own Remote-Work Arrangement
The written employment agreement is the natural starting point. It may identify a particular office, contain a remote or hybrid-work provision, incorporate workplace policies, or give the employer authority to change where the work is performed. If the contract deals with work location clearly, that wording can have a significant effect on the analysis.
The written agreement may not be the whole story. You may have an email confirming that remote work could continue, or a manager may have given you express approval in a conversation. The arrangement may have been reconfirmed later, after other employees returned to the office. What you and your employer said matters, but so can what both sides did afterward.
This does not mean that every long-running workplace practice becomes contractual. Employers often permit arrangements that are temporary, discretionary or expressly subject to change. Being told that you can work from home "for now" is different from being told that remote work can continue as part of your role.
When an employee tells me, "I have been working from home for years," that history matters, but I would not stop there. I would want to know what the employer actually agreed to and what both sides understood the arrangement to mean. In many RTO disputes, the difference between permission and agreement is where the analysis really begins.
1. What does your written employment agreement say?
The first provisions to check concern work location, remote or hybrid work, mobility, workplace policies and the employer's ability to make changes. If the contract gives the employer a clear right to require office attendance, that may strengthen the employer's position, although the wording and scope of that right still matter.
2. What was later agreed, and was it meant to continue?
The next question is what happened after the original contract was signed. Did you specifically ask to work remotely, who approved the arrangement, what was said, and is there an email or message confirming it? It also matters whether the arrangement was temporary, conditional or open-ended. Cressey confirms that an oral agreement can matter even where the original contract did not contemplate remote work.
3. How did the arrangement actually operate?
The practical history can help explain what the parties understood. How consistently did you work remotely, was office attendance still expected, did management know and approve the arrangement, and was it reconfirmed over time? Practice does not automatically create a contractual right, but it can be important evidence of what the parties agreed to.
4. What is your employer changing now, and what notice did you receive?
Moving someone from a long-established full-time remote arrangement to five office days a week may be quite different from making a modest adjustment to an existing hybrid schedule. The degree of the change, the employer's contractual authority and the amount of notice all matter. I would compare the arrangement you had immediately before the RTO direction with what the employer is now requiring.
If disability, family status or another protected characteristic is involved, that should be considered separately. You may have a human-rights accommodation issue even if remote work was never a contractual term.
What If Your Employer Says the Contract Allows the Change?
A clause allowing an employer to change work location can be important, as can a remote-work policy that expressly says the arrangement may be altered or withdrawn. If the language is clear and applies to the change being made, a constructive-dismissal argument may be more difficult.
The wording deserves careful attention. A broad management-rights clause, a mobility provision and a clause dealing specifically with remote work may not have the same effect. A later individual agreement about working from home may also have changed the practical terms of the relationship.
The seriousness of the change matters too. Under the Supreme Court of Canada's approach in Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, constructive dismissal can arise where an employer unilaterally breaches the employment contract and substantially alters an essential term. A small adjustment to an existing hybrid schedule is not the same as removing an agreed full-time remote arrangement.
Notice is part of that picture, but Cressey does not create a simple RTO notice formula. The Court upheld the finding that an essential oral work-from-home term could not be removed without reasonable notice. It did not say that a certain number of years working remotely produces a fixed number of weeks of notice.
Before You Refuse the RTO Direction or Resign
If you have worked from home for years and receive an email telling you to return to the office, it is understandable to feel that the employer has changed the deal. Refusing immediately or resigning before the employment relationship has been reviewed can create consequences that are difficult to undo.
If you resign and a court later finds that the employer was entitled to require office attendance, the legal result may be very different from what you expected. Continuing indefinitely under a significant change without objecting can create a different concern, because the employer may later argue that you accepted the new arrangement. Depending on the circumstances, it may be possible to continue working while making it clear that you object, but the timing and wording of that response can matter. If the employment relationship ends and you receive a package or release, my guide to severance pay in BC explains what to review before signing.
The first email you send does not have to decide the entire dispute. Before responding strongly, it helps to know whether the return is permanent or temporary, when it takes effect, whether the employer is changing an existing hybrid schedule or ending a full-time remote arrangement, and whether there is an accommodation issue that needs to be raised.
Depending on the circumstances, you may acknowledge the direction, ask questions, request time to review the change, explain your concerns about the existing arrangement, or identify a genuine accommodation need. The immediate goal is to understand and protect your position before making a decision that may be difficult to reverse.
If your return date is approaching
If you have already received an RTO direction and are considering refusing it, objecting to the change or resigning, you can speak with me before you respond. A short review of the agreement, the remote-work history and the employer's direction may clarify what matters before you decide what to do next.
What Should You Keep Before You Reply?
The documents closest to the arrangement are usually the most useful. Keep your employment agreement, offer letter, any remote or hybrid-work agreement, relevant workplace policies, emails or messages approving remote work, and the employer's RTO direction. If management later changes the return date, proposes a hybrid alternative or explains why the previous arrangement is ending, keep those communications as well.
A short chronology can also help. Record when remote work began, why it began, who approved it, whether it was described as temporary, whether it was later confirmed, and when the employer first said it would end. If disability or family responsibilities may require accommodation, keep the relevant correspondence so that the contractual and accommodation issues can be reviewed separately.
You do not need to assemble every workplace record before asking for advice. The goal is to preserve the documents that explain how the arrangement developed and what the employer is changing now.
How I Would Review Your Situation
When someone contacts me about a return-to-office order, I do not begin by deciding whether the employer is right or wrong. I begin by trying to understand the employment relationship that existed before the RTO direction arrived.
The written agreement comes first, but the history that followed it matters just as much. I want to know how remote work began, what management said about it, whether it was temporary, how consistently the arrangement operated, and whether anything in the contract or workplace policy gave the employer the right to change it.
Then the new direction has to be compared with the arrangement you already had. The notice provided, any alternative offered, and anything you have already said in response can all affect the analysis. Work location may not be the only thing changing either; an RTO direction sometimes arrives alongside changes to duties, compensation, discipline, disability-related needs or family responsibilities.
By the end of the review, you should have a clearer picture of what your employment arrangement appears to have been, what your employer is now changing, and what realistic options remain before you respond or resign. Sometimes the evidence will support a constructive-dismissal concern; sometimes it will show that the employer has more authority to require a return than you expected. Both conclusions are useful if they are reached before an irreversible decision is made.
Frequently Asked Questions About Return to Office in BC
Can my employer make me return to the office?
Possibly. The answer depends on your employment agreement, any later remote-work arrangement, applicable policies and the employer's contractual authority to change where you work. An RTO direction is not automatically unlawful simply because you have worked remotely for a long time.
Is an RTO mandate automatically constructive dismissal?
No. In Cressey, remote work had become an express oral and essential term of the employee's agreement, and the employer removed that term without agreement or reasonable notice. A different employee with a different contract and remote-work history may have a different result.
Does working from home for several years give me a permanent right to continue?
Not automatically. The history can be important evidence, but the stronger question is what you and your employer actually agreed to. A temporary arrangement and an ongoing individual agreement are not the same thing.
What if remote work was never written into my contract?
That does not necessarily end the analysis. Cressey confirms that an oral agreement can matter, and later words and conduct can help show what the employment relationship became. The written contract remains important, but it may not be the whole story.
What if my contract says the employer can change my work location?
That may strengthen the employer's position, although the wording still matters. A later individual remote-work agreement may also need to be considered with the original contract before reaching a conclusion.
What if I need remote work because of a disability or family responsibility?
That may create a separate human-rights accommodation issue. A contractual right to remote work and an employer's duty to accommodate are different legal questions, and one can exist without the other.
Should I resign if my employer ends my remote-work arrangement?
That decision should not be made before the legal position is understood. If the employer was entitled to make the change, an employee who leaves may simply have resigned; continuing without objection can raise a different concern. The timing and wording of the response therefore matter.
Before You Decide What to Do
A return-to-office direction can look simple when it arrives, but your legal position may depend on years of history that are not visible in the employer's latest email. The written contract matters, but so can later conversations, approvals, policies and the way remote work actually operated. The significance of the change and the notice provided matter as well, while disability or family responsibilities can introduce a separate accommodation issue.
The 2026 decision in Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin confirms that remote work can become an enforceable term of employment in British Columbia. It also shows why the answer cannot simply be taken from the number of years someone worked from home. What matters is the employment relationship you and your employer actually created and whether the employer is now changing an essential part of it.
If you are considering refusing a return-to-office direction, raising an accommodation issue or resigning because of the change, understand that relationship before taking the next step. I can review the agreement, the history of the remote-work arrangement and the RTO direction with you so that you know what issues may matter before you respond. You can also read about my broader employment law practice in Vancouver and across BC if your workplace problem extends beyond the RTO direction.
Sources and Further Reading
The authorities and official guidance below provide the legal foundation and context for the issues discussed in this article. They are included for readers who want to examine the underlying cases, legislation and accommodation guidance directly.
1. Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin, 2026 BCCA 199
BC COURT OF APPEAL · PRIMARY CASE AUTHORITY
The central 2026 appellate authority discussed in this article. The case addresses an established work-from-home arrangement that had become an express oral and essential term of employment.
Full URL: https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2026/2026bcca199/2026bcca199.html
2. Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA · CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL
The Supreme Court of Canada decision setting out the governing common-law framework for constructive dismissal, including when a unilateral employer change can substantially alter an essential term of employment.
Full URL: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14677/index.do
3. Human Rights Code, RSBC 1996, c. 210
BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATION
British Columbia's statutory framework prohibiting discrimination in employment on protected grounds, including family status and physical or mental disability.
Full URL: https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96210_01
4. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) v. Gibraltar Mines Ltd., 2023 BCCA 168
BC COURT OF APPEAL · FAMILY STATUS
An important BC Court of Appeal authority on family-status discrimination, including serious interference with a substantial parental or other family duty or obligation.
Full URL: https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2023/2023bcca168/2023bcca168.html
5. Rights under the Human Rights Code as a Worker
BC OFFICE OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER · OFFICIAL GUIDANCE
Official guidance for workers on discrimination and accommodation, including the obligation to cooperate in the accommodation process and the employer's duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship.
Full URL: https://bchumanrights.ca/human-rights/rights-and-responsibilities/worker/
6. Parmar v. Tribe Management Inc., 2022 BCSC 1675
BC SUPREME COURT · CONTEXTUAL PANDEMIC-ERA CASE
Useful contextual authority, but not a direct return-to-office precedent. The case concerned an unpaid leave imposed under a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy; remote and hybrid work formed part of the factual background.
Full URL: https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1675/2022bcsc1675.html
By Tim Louis
