As many employers continue to implement or reinforce return-to-office policies in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic, a recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal serves as an important reminder of the legal risks that can arise when altering established remote work arrangements. In Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin, 2026 BCCA 199, the Court confirmed that a long-standing work-from-home arrangement may become an enforceable term of employment and that an employer’s unilateral decision to revoke that arrangement can amount to constructive dismissal.
Parolin was a former employee of Cressey Construction Corporation (“Cressey”) who held the role of Director of Marketing. During her tenure with Cressey, the terms of her employment contract were established orally. At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, Parolin, like many other Cressey employees, began working from home and continued to do so after the pandemic due to health concerns related to one of her children.
In May 2023, Cressey directed Parolin to return to in-office work full-time. Parolin concluded that she had been constructively dismissed and commenced an action arising from the in-office mandate.
Trial Judgment
The Trial Court found that Parolin was constructively dismissed.
Applying the test in Farber v. Royal Trust Co., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 846, 1997 CanLII 387, the Court found that it was a term of Parolin’s employment contract, albeit never reduced to writing, that she was permitted to work from home and that it could be changed only with reasonable notice. The Court found that Cressey unilaterally breached an essential term of her employment contract by directing her to return to work in person, resulting in Parolin’s constructive dismissal.
Based on Parolin’s age (55), her 18-year work history with Cressey, and her role as a Director, the Court concluded that 19 months’ notice was a reasonable damages award.
Court of Appeal
Cressey appealed the Trial Judgment, arguing that the judge erred in determining the terms of Parolin’s employment contract and in determining that Cressey breached that contract.
Turning to the first ground of appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision, finding that Parolin’s employment contract contained an express oral term permitting her to work from home and that this was an essential term of the employment contract that could not be unilaterally changed without reasonable notice.
The Court of Appeal also upheld the trial decision, finding that Cressey breached Parolin’s employment contract. Specifically, the Court found that Cressey constructively dismissed Parolin when it required her to return to the office full-time without providing reasonable notice. In the circumstances of the case, Cressey’s revocation of Parolin’s ability to work from home was a unilateral change to an essential term of her employment contract and amounted to constructive dismissal.
The Court therefore dismissed the appeal.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin highlights the importance of carefully assessing the contractual implications of remote work arrangements before implementing return-to-office mandates. Where an employee’s ability to work remotely has become an express or implied term of employment, requiring a return to in-office work without reasonable notice may expose an employer to liability for constructive dismissal.
About the Author
Samantha Sutherland is an Associate at Turnpenney Milne LLP, practising in all areas of workplace law and conducting impartial workplace investigations. She acts for both employers and employees, and is dedicated to creating healthy, safe and productive work environments. She provides practical advice to employers on HR issues, accommodations, and workplace policies, and represents clients in wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal, severance negotiations, and human rights disputes.
Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.