Toronto, ON — June 17th, 2026 — The B.C. Court of Appeal has released a significant decision on remote work that all employers should have on their radar. In 2026 BCCA 199 (CanLII) | Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin | CanLII, the Court confirmed that a long‑standing, consistently approved remote‑work arrangement can become an enforceable term of employment, even without a written agreement.
For employers navigating return‑to‑office strategies, hybrid arrangements, or individualized flexibility requests, this case is a clear reminder: how remote work is managed in practice matters just as much as what is written on paper.
The Case in Brief
The employee, Tracy Parolin, worked for Cressey for 18 years. Over that time, she was granted increasing flexibility to accommodate childcare, including a fully remote arrangement that continued for several years with the explicit approval of multiple supervisors. Senior leadership supported the arrangement and helped set up her home office.
In 2023, a new supervisor abruptly required her to return to the office full‑time. No notice was provided, and no discussion occurred about modifying her long‑standing arrangement. Parolin refused and treated the change as a constructive dismissal.
The B.C. Court of Appeal agreed.
What the Court Found
- The employee had worked remotely for several years with repeated, explicit approval from multiple supervisors.
- Leadership supported the arrangement and helped set up her home office.
- This consistent practice, combined with clear verbal approval, created an enforceable contractual term. Even without a written agreement, the remote work arrangement had become an express term of Parolin’s employment.
- A new manager’s preference for in‑office work did not override the existing term.
- Requiring a sudden return to office without notice was a unilateral and substantial change in the terms of her employment, constituting constructive dismissal.
Why This Matters for Employers
This decision reinforces that remote‑work arrangements, once granted and relied upon, can become a binding term in the employment relationship. Employers cannot assume that providing flexibility is temporary. Cressey confirms that remote work can become a binding term through practice, reliance, and employer conduct. Written agreements matter – but so does what happens day‑to‑day. Employers implementing return‑to‑office strategies must assess whether any employee’s arrangement has, in effect, become contractual.
Practical Steps for Employers
- Audit current arrangements. Identify who has long‑standing remote or hybrid schedules and how those arrangements were approved.
- Formalize expectations. Remote‑work agreements and policies should clearly state whether arrangements are temporary and how they may be changed or revoked.
- Consider providing notice of when employees are to return to the office. Abrupt changes can increase constructive dismissal and human‑rights claims.
- Align management practices. Ensure supervisors understand the limits of their authority, the importance of consistency and the legal implications of approving (or revoking) work form home arrangements.
- Consider accommodation obligations. Where remote work often intersects with disability or family status, accommodation obligations apply independently.
The Bottom Line
Employers retain the ability to set workplace expectations – but Cressey underscores that flexibility, once granted and relied upon, can become legally enforceable. Before revoking or revising remote‑work arrangements, employers should review the history, assess risk, and plan a compliant path forward.
Contact us at Protea LLP if you are considering changing remote working conditions or updating your Work From Home policies and employment agreements.
