Subscribe to our newsletters
Cressey Construction v. Parolin: BC Court of Appeal Confirms Return-to-Office Order Was Constructive Dismissal
Return-to-office mandates are now one of the sharpest sources of legal risk for employers, and the BC Court of Appeal has just shown why. In Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin, the Court upheld a finding that ordering a long-serving employee back to the office full-time, without reasonable notice, was a constructive dismissal. The price was 19 months of pay in lieu of notice. What makes the decision essential reading for BC employers is that the employee's right to work from home was never written down. It was an oral arrangement that, over three years, had hardened into an enforceable term of her contract.
This is the appeal of the trial decision we covered in Parolin v. Cressey Construction: When Informal Flexible Work Arrangements Become Binding Contractual Terms. That article sets out the full facts and the trial judge's reasoning. This one focuses on what the Court of Appeal confirmed and added when it dismissed the employer's appeal.
Employers keep the right to manage the workplace, including where people work, but that right is limited where a binding term exists. Once a work-from-home term is established through years of approval and reliance, changing it takes reasonable notice or the employee's agreement. Skip that step and you may owe pay in lieu, here, well over a year and a half.
Planning a return-to-office mandate in BC?
Before you require staff back on site, it is worth knowing whether remote or flexible arrangements have quietly become contractual terms for any of your employees. Getting this wrong can convert a policy change into a constructive dismissal.
Call: 1-800-771-7882 Speak With an Employment LawyerThe short version of the facts
The full story is in our post on the trial decision. In brief: Tracy Parolin worked for Cressey Construction, a Vancouver real estate developer, for 18 years, rising to Director of Marketing under a mostly oral contract. From 2013 she worked flexible hours for childcare, and from 2020 she worked from home, both approved and relied on for years, with a senior executive telling her that as long as the work got done the location did not matter, and helping set up her home office. At a May 2023 meeting a new manager ordered her back to the office full-time, offered a token raise of about $1,400, and suggested her role was really a Marketing Manager. She treated this as a constructive dismissal and left, then launched a series of business ventures rather than job-hunting. The trial court awarded 19 months' notice, found no failure to mitigate, and declined punitive damages. Cressey appealed on the contract and mitigation findings.
What the Court of Appeal added
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in full. Beyond affirming the result, three points give this decision its value as appellate authority for BC employers.
Work from home was an essential oral term
The Court held the right to work from home was an express oral term of the contract, not a mere policy or privilege. Three years of remote work with the employer's approval, plus the employee's reliance on it, made it an essential and enforceable term, and no fresh consideration was needed to add it.
Revoking it without notice was constructive dismissal
Directing a full-time return to the office was a unilateral change to that essential term, made without the employee's consent and without reasonable notice. Under the Potter and Farber framework, that breach alone was enough to constitute constructive dismissal.
The surrounding conduct reinforced it
The token raise after years of requests, paired with the suggestion her role was really a Marketing Manager, could separately show the employer no longer intended to be bound. The Court did not need to rely on any "demotion" finding, because the work-from-home breach was sufficient on its own.
Starting a business was reasonable mitigation
She did not have to job-hunt. Launching business ventures in a field she knew was a reasonable way to mitigate. And the in-office jobs the employer pointed to were not comparable, because they lacked the work-from-home flexibility that was central to her role.
Key lessons for BC employers
Remote work can become a contract term
A work-from-home arrangement does not need to be in writing to bind you. If it is approved, continues for a long period, and the employee relies on it, it can become an essential term of the contract.
You cannot simply revoke it
Ordering an employee with an established work-from-home term back to the office full-time, without notice or consent, is a unilateral change to an essential term and can amount to constructive dismissal.
Reasonable notice is the lever
You retain the right to manage where people work, but where a binding term exists, changing it requires reasonable discussion or notice. The more entrenched the arrangement, the more notice a change will require.
Watch the accompanying conduct
Pairing a return-to-office order with a token raise or signals of a de facto demotion can independently show you no longer intend to be bound by the contract. Cumulative conduct counts.
Managers' informal promises bind you
A casual assurance that location does not matter, followed by help setting up a home office, was enough here. Train managers on what they promise, because their words can create enforceable terms.
Do not count on the mitigation defence
A departing employee need not job-hunt, and starting a business can be reasonable mitigation. You also cannot point to in-office roles as comparable alternatives when you removed the remote-work term in the first place.
How to change a work-from-home arrangement without triggering constructive dismissal
The decision does not mean employers can never bring people back to the office. It means the change has to be handled as a contractual one, not a unilateral order. Before rolling out a return-to-office mandate in BC, work through the following.
A practical checklist for BC employers
- Identify which employees have long-standing or approved remote or flexible arrangements, and treat those as potential contract terms.
- For those employees, provide clear, reasonable notice of any change to work location, scaled to how entrenched the arrangement is, or obtain their agreement to the change.
- Consider fresh consideration where you are seeking genuine agreement to a new term, rather than imposing it.
- Check for a family-status or disability dimension, such as childcare or health-related reliance, that may trigger a duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code.
- Put employment terms, including the status of any remote-work arrangement, in writing, and state expressly if remote work is temporary or subject to change on notice.
- Train managers not to make open-ended verbal assurances about work location or hours.
- Get legal advice before mandating a return for anyone whose remote arrangement has run for an extended period.
Frequently asked questions
Can a work-from-home arrangement really be a contract term if it was never written down?
Yes. In this case the BC Court of Appeal treated the right to work from home as an express oral term. Oral terms are interpreted using the same principles as written ones. Where an arrangement is approved, continues over a meaningful period, and the employee relies on it, it can become an essential and enforceable term of the contract.
Can a BC employer order employees back to the office?
Often yes, but it depends on the employee. For someone with no established remote-work term, a return-to-office direction is generally within the employer's authority. For an employee whose remote arrangement has become a contract term, revoking it requires reasonable notice or agreement, or it can amount to constructive dismissal.
How much notice is needed to change an established work-from-home term?
There is no fixed number. Reasonable notice depends on the circumstances, including how long and how firmly the arrangement was in place and the impact on the employee. The more entrenched the arrangement, the more notice a change is likely to require. Legal advice on the specific situation is the safest course.
Does offering a raise alongside a return-to-office order avoid constructive dismissal?
Not necessarily. Here, a token raise offered alongside the return-to-office direction and a suggestion the employee's role was really a lower position was treated as reinforcing the constructive dismissal, not curing it. The removal of the work-from-home term was itself enough.
Can we reduce our exposure by arguing the employee should have found another job?
Be cautious. A constructively dismissed employee does not always have to seek traditional employment, and starting a business can be reasonable mitigation. The employer bears the onus, and cannot rely on in-office roles as comparable alternatives when it was the removal of the remote-work term that caused the dismissal.
How Achkar Law helps employers
Achkar Law advises employers across British Columbia on managing workforce change without triggering liability. We help you assess whether remote or flexible arrangements have become contractual terms, structure return-to-office transitions with proper notice, and draft employment agreements and workplace policies that keep flexibility under your control. We also advise on terminations, dismissals, and constructive dismissal risk before decisions are made.
Related reading: our analysis of the trial decision, Parolin v. Cressey Construction: When Informal Flexible Work Arrangements Become Binding Contractual Terms.
Rolling out a return-to-office policy in BC? Get it reviewed first.
A poorly handled return-to-office mandate can turn a management decision into a constructive dismissal and a large notice award. Our team can review your workforce arrangements and help you make the change the right way. We advise employers across British Columbia and Ontario.
Call us at 1-800-771-7882 or fill out the form below and we will be in touch.
The information in this article is general and is not legal advice. An employment lawyer can advise on your organization's specific situation. This article summarizes a public decision of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, 2026 BCCA 199.