What a B.C. Court Ruling on Return-to-Office Policies Could Mean for Remote Work Across Canada

Shraddha Tripathy

6/1/20265 min read

As employers across Canada continue pushing workers back into offices, a recent court decision in British Columbia is emerging as a significant warning: return-to-office mandates may carry legal risks when flexible work arrangements have become an established part of an employee’s job.

In a ruling delivered in mid-May, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld a lower court decision finding that Tracy Parolin, an employee of Vancouver-based Cressey Construction Corporation, was constructively dismissed when the company abruptly ended her long-standing flexible remote work arrangement and ordered her back to the office full time.

The case is now being closely watched by employment lawyers and human resources professionals, many of whom say it could have implications far beyond British Columbia as workplaces across the country continue to rethink — and in many cases roll back — pandemic-era flexibility.

A Longstanding Arrangement, Not a Temporary Perk

At the centre of the case was not simply whether Parolin worked from home, but whether that arrangement had evolved into a core term of her employment.

According to the appeal decision, Parolin had been working under a flexible schedule since 2013, when she returned from maternity leave after the birth of twins, one of whom had significant health needs. Over the years, her employer had accommodated that arrangement, and successive supervisors had continued to approve it.

Then, like many workers, she began working remotely in March 2020 as COVID-19 forced offices to close. But while other employees later returned to in-person work, Parolin continued to work from home with management approval, in part because of her ongoing childcare responsibilities.

That situation continued until May 2023, when a new supervisor, during what was supposed to be a meeting about a salary increase, revoked her flexible arrangement and directed her to return to the office full time.

Parolin left her job shortly after.

Why the Court Ruled Against the Employer

Cressey argued that there was no explicit contractual term stating Parolin was entitled to full-time remote work or flexible hours outside regular office expectations.

But the courts were not persuaded by that argument.

Instead, the trial judge found that Parolin’s remote and flexible schedule had, through years of employer support and repeated approval, become a fundamental and enforceable term of her employment. The company’s sudden decision to end that arrangement, without notice and without agreement, amounted to a unilateral and substantial change.

That, the court found, constituted constructive dismissal.

The Supreme Court of Canada has defined constructive dismissal as occurring when an employer makes a substantial unilateral change to an essential term of employment that the employee does not accept, effectively leaving them little real choice but to resign.

The Court of Appeal agreed that this is what happened in Parolin’s case.

Why the Ruling Matters

For workers, especially parents and caregivers, the decision may feel like long-awaited recognition that flexible work arrangements are not always informal privileges that can be withdrawn at a manager’s whim.

For employers, the message is more cautionary: workplace flexibility, once normalized and consistently supported, can become legally significant.

Parolin said the decision validated her belief that what happened to her “wasn’t right.” She also said she hopes the case highlights why flexibility matters, not as a reduction in commitment, but as a way for people to balance work and family without sacrificing either.

“It didn’t make me work less,” she said. “It allowed me to fully do my job and also be there for my family.”

A Wider Legal Ripple Effect

Employment lawyers say the case does not mean employers are barred from bringing staff back to the office. But it does show how easily a poorly handled return-to-office directive can cross legal lines.

Ryan Berger, an employment lawyer in Vancouver, says the decision makes clear that remote work arrangements can become essential terms of employment under the right circumstances. That means organizations considering a change in policy need to think carefully about how those arrangements were established and maintained over time.

He expects lawyers acting for employees across Canada will begin citing the case when arguing that remote work was not temporary, but embedded in the employment relationship.

Other legal experts agree the ruling is likely to be influential, especially as more workers challenge abrupt or sweeping return-to-office mandates.

Why Employers Need to Move Carefully

Lawyers say the key lesson from the case is not that employers have lost the right to set workplace expectations, but that they cannot pivot too quickly when the facts suggest flexibility has become part of the job.

Toronto employment lawyer Sundeep Gokhale says the case should not be read as meaning every return-to-office order will trigger constructive dismissal. But it does highlight what can go wrong when employers impose major changes without clarity, planning or notice.

He says courts have long treated the location of work as a fundamental term of employment. If that location changes — especially after years of accepted practice — employers need to handle the transition carefully.

That can include providing reasonable notice, clearly distinguishing temporary pandemic accommodations from permanent arrangements, and ensuring expectations are documented rather than assumed.

Pandemic Cases May Be Different

At the same time, not every worker with a remote work history will be in a position similar to Parolin’s.

Some legal observers note that her case was stronger because her flexible arrangement predated the pandemic by several years. That mattered. It suggested that her work-from-home and non-standard schedule were not just emergency responses to COVID-19, but part of a deeper employment understanding between her and her employer.

Lawyer Melanie Harmer has suggested that if Parolin had only started working remotely because of pandemic lockdowns, the employer might have had a stronger case.

That distinction could prove critical in future litigation. Workers whose remote arrangements began solely as temporary health measures may face a more difficult legal path than those who can show longstanding employer support before COVID-19 changed workplace norms.

Pressure Growing on Working Parents

The case also lands at a moment when return-to-office mandates are causing renewed strain for many families.

Human resources experts say the move back to full-time office attendance has been especially difficult for parents already facing high costs for commuting, childcare and elder care. For some, flexible work is not just a preference but the difference between being able to stay in the workforce or not.

That is one reason why legal disputes over remote work are expected to increase.

With more employers tightening attendance requirements, workplace policy is colliding with a post-pandemic reality in which many employees have reorganized their lives around flexibility they believed was durable.

A Decision Likely to Echo

The B.C. Court of Appeal’s ruling does not create a blanket right to work from home. But it does establish an important principle: when a remote or flexible arrangement has been consistently accepted and woven into the employment relationship, it may become something more than a convenience.

It may become a contractual reality.

That is why the case is likely to resonate across Canada. Not because it ends the return-to-office debate, but because it clarifies that employers cannot always assume they are free to reverse years of workplace practice without consequence.

As more disputes move through the courts, this decision may become one of the first major signposts in defining what remote work means — not just culturally, but legally.

News

Stay updated with the latest BC news stories, subscribe to our newsletter today.

SUBSCRIBE

LINKS

Ethics