FTR Now
British Columbia Court of Appeal Confirms Remote Work Arrangements May Constitute Binding Contractual Terms
Date: May 25, 2026
In Cressey Construction Corporation v Parolin, 2026 BCCA 199, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) confirmed that a longstanding remote work arrangement may constitute an enforceable term of an employment contract—even where unwritten—and that the unilateral revocation of such an arrangement, without notice, may give rise to constructive dismissal.
Importantly, the Court’s conclusion was grounded in a highly specific factual matrix, including the length, consistency, and express approval of the remote work arrangement; the employer’s conduct reinforcing that arrangement; and its abrupt, unilateral revocation without notice. This decision should not be understood as establishing a general rule regarding remote work arrangements or as extending beyond similar fact patterns.
Background
The employee worked for approximately 18 years, most recently as Director of Marketing. The terms of her employment were largely oral, apart from a written job description.
Following the birth of her children—one of whom had significant health issues—the employee began working under progressively more flexible arrangements, with her employer’s approval, beginning in 2013. During the COVID‑19 pandemic, she transitioned to remote work and, notably, continued working from home thereafter with the express approval of successive senior managers, who confirmed that her physical location was immaterial provided her work was performed. This arrangement continued post-pandemic and was reinforced by the employer’s conduct, including its assistance in the establishment of a home office.
In May 2023, a new supervisor directed the employee to return to the office on a full-time basis, denied her requested salary increase (offering only a modest adjustment), and suggested her role was more appropriately characterized at a manager level rather than at a director level. The employee resigned and commenced a constructive dismissal claim.
Trial Decision
Constructive Dismissal
In Parolin v Cressey Construction Corporation, 2025 BCSC 741, the trial judge held that the employee’s longstanding flexible and remote work arrangement had become a term of her employment contract. The employer’s unilateral revocation of that arrangement, coupled with the imposition of a full-time return-to-office requirement without notice, constituted constructive dismissal.
Mitigation
The trial court rejected the employer’s argument that the employee had failed to mitigate her damages. Although she did not pursue traditional replacement employment, the Court found it reasonable, in the circumstances, for her to pursue alternative income through entrepreneurial activities.
The employee was awarded damages based on a 19-month reasonable notice period.
Court of Appeal Decision
The BCCA, per Chief Justice Marchand for a unanimous Court, dismissed the employer’s appeal.
Constructive Dismissal
The Court upheld the trial judge’s finding that the employee’s remote work arrangement constituted an enforceable and express oral term of the employment contract. It emphasized the presence of clear verbal assurances and the consistent compliance with the arrangement over time.
The Court further held that requiring the employee to return to the office full-time amounted to a substantial unilateral change to an essential term of her employment, fundamentally altering her working conditions. The employer neither obtained the employee’s consent nor provided reasonable working notice of the change. These factors supported the finding of constructive dismissal and justified the Court’s refusal to interfere with the 19‑month damages award.
Mitigation
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge’s assessment of mitigation. It agreed that the employee acted reasonably in pursuing alternative income through business ventures. The Court also confirmed that the employer had failed to establish the availability of comparable employment, particularly where the roles it identified required in-office work that was inconsistent with the employee’s established remote arrangement.
Key Takeaways
This decision was highly fact-specific. It involved a long-standing, consistently applied, and expressly approved arrangement that the employer subsequently revoked abruptly and without notice. It should not be read as suggesting that, in all circumstances, remote or flexible work arrangements become binding contractual terms that cannot be unilaterally revoked by the employer.
Furthermore, Cressey Construction v Parolin suggests that in assessing mitigation, consideration should be given to whether alternative employment is truly comparable, including whether an in-office role is comparable to a previously remote arrangement.
For questions or assistance with your company’s remote work and flexible work arrangements, please contact your Hicks Morley lawyer.
The article in this client update provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP. ©