Return-to-office order sparks constructive dismissal case

The Law Courts building, which is home to B.C. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, is seen in Vancouver on Monday, Jan. 12, 2026. (Ethan Cairns / The Canadian Press)

A British Columbia appeal court has ruled that an employee was constructively dismissed after her employer abruptly ended a long-standing remote work arrangement and ordered her back to the office full time.

The court found that the employee’s work-from-home arrangement had become part of her employment agreement after years of approval and support from the company.

In an interview with CTVNews.ca, Toronto-based employment lawyer Howard Levitt said “It has long been the law that if people are being allowed to work from home, (and) they have not signed a contract saying the company can recall them at any time, and enough time goes by, as it certainly has by now for most people, calling them back to the office is a constructive dismissal, allowing them to refuse to go and to sue for wrongful dismissal.”

The decision comes as many employers continue to navigate return-to-office policies and changing workplace expectations.

Remote work arrangement lasted for years

The employee worked for the company for around 18 years and most recently served as director of marketing.

Starting in 2013, she was allowed to work more flexibly following the birth of her children, including one with significant health needs. During the COVID-19 pandemic, she moved to working from home and continued doing so afterward with the approval of senior managers.

• READ MORE: Remote work requests receiving ‘blanket’ rejections: civil servant unions

The court heard that company leaders repeatedly told her that where she worked was not important as long as the job got done. The company also helped her set up a home office.

Return-to-office order led to lawsuit

The dispute began in 2023 when a new supervisor told the employee she had to return to the office full time.

The supervisor also declined her request for a larger salary increase and suggested her role was closer to a manager position than a director position.

The employee resigned and sued, arguing that the company had fundamentally changed the terms of her employment.

A trial judge agreed and awarded damages based on a 19-month notice period.

Court: Employer changed key term of employment

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision.

The judges found that the remote work arrangement had become an important part of the employee’s contract because it had been approved, discussed and followed for many years.

• READ MORE: B.C. union calls for full-time work-from-home due to spiking gas prices

By requiring her to return to the office without her agreement or advance notice, the employer made a major change to her working conditions, the court said.

What are the takeaways?

The court stressed that the ruling was based on the specific facts of this case and does not mean every remote work arrangement automatically becomes a contractual right.

Still, the decision highlights the risks employers may face when changing long standing workplace arrangements without notice or employee consent.

“Employers should not let people work from home unless they’ve signed contracts permitting them to return to the office on a certain amount of notice,” Levitt said.

As for the employees, the lawyer said, “you can feel comfortable, the employer can’t suddenly make you go back to the office with impunity, because as a matter of law, it’s a wrongful dismissal if they do that, allowing you to get full severance pay.”