Written by Julius Melnitzer – July 17, 2026
The British Columbia Court of Appeal has ruled that an unwritten but long-accepted work-from-home arrangement can become an essential term of employment, so that a unilateral return-to-office order — without notice or agreement — can trigger constructive dismissal.
“The decision in Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin is getting a lot of attention because dealing with an employee who’s told to come back to the office is a critical issue for employers these days,” says Allison Buchanan, counsel at Dentons Canada LLP’s employment and labour group and who wasn’t involved in the case. “What can they do? What can’t they do? What leverage do they have?”
The key takeaways from the decision are that remote work can be a fundamental aspect of employment and that a legal right can be established even if it’s not in writing. Tracy Parolin worked for Cressey for 18 years and was eventually promoted to director of marketing, a role she held until her employment ended in May 2023. The terms of her employment were never put in writing. However, they included flexible hours since 2013 to accommodate her childcare obligations and a remote working arrangement as of 2020, prompted by health concerns for one of her children.
In 2021, Parolin sought to confirm whether she could continue to work from home. The company’s executive vice-president told her it didn’t matter where she worked, “as long as the job was getting done.” By 2023, Parolin was working full time from home. In May 2023, Parolin sought a salary increase. Cressey offered a modest raise and told her to return to the office full time. Parolin treated this as a constructive dismissal and quit seven days later. She then sued for wrongful dismissal. The trial judge ruled the unilateral full-time return-to-office mandate changed an essential term of employment and resulted in a constructive dismissal. The company appealed, but the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling.
The court concluded the mutual acceptance of the work-from-home arrangement for three full years became an essential term of Parolin’s employment because it substantially changed her working conditions, which were tied to childcare. “Because changing an essential term amounts to a dismissal, the employer either had to obtain consent for the change from the employee or give reasonable notice of the change,” Buchanan says. While the employer’s consent to the remote work was explicit in this case, it didn’t have to be for the employee to establish constructive dismissal.
“Canadian employment law recognizes that employment contracts can be modified through conduct, so constructive dismissal can also be implied where the company’s acquiescence is established through its conduct,” says Claire Wanhella, an associate in McMillan LLP’s employment and labour group and who wasn’t involved in the case. On the other hand, Buchanan observes, the result might have been different had Cressey been able to establish that continuation of remote work depended on repeated approvals from management. “And the employer might also have benefitted from a written remote-work agreement that included a right to recall,” she adds. That said, employers can take heart from the fact that many commentators stress the highly specific factual matrix of the Cressey case and argue that it shouldn’t be read as a general rule about remote work.