Tracy Parolin worked for Cressey Construction for roughly 18 years. Her employment arrangements were shaped by conversations and established practice rather than one comprehensive written contract. She had flexible hours to help manage family responsibilities, and during the pandemic she began working remotely. That arrangement continued with the knowledge of senior management. When the employer subsequently required her to return to the office full time, she argued that it had fundamentally changed her employment terms.
The litigation reached the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin, 2026 BCCA 199. The employer challenged the finding that the work arrangement had contractual force, the conclusion that it breached the contract and the assessment of mitigation.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal. It accepted that an employment contract doesn't have to be captured entirely in a signed document. Depending on the evidence, a consistent arrangement expressly accepted by management can become a term of employment. Removing that arrangement unilaterally can amount to constructive dismissal when the change is substantial. The employee's refusal to accept the changed terms also had to be assessed in its circumstances, not treated as an automatic failure to mitigate.
The ruling doesn't make remote work a permanent entitlement for everyone who worked from home during the pandemic. The court was concerned with the specific assurances, length of service and way the parties had actually defined this employee's working relationship. Another employer with a clear and consistently applied contractual right to change work location could be in a different position.
For businesses seeking broader office attendance, this case is a reminder to review the employment arrangements they have allowed to develop, including oral promises and the conduct of managers. A policy change may be operationally attractive, yet carry termination liability if it removes something that has become a material contract term.
For employees, the same distinction matters. The issue is not simply whether working from home is preferable, but whether the arrangement has become part of the bargain between worker and employer.
Source: British Columbia Court of Appeal, Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin, 2026 BCCA 199. Corroborated case analyses: https://www.mross.com/what-we-think/article/british-columbia-court-of-appeal-recognizes-remote-work-as-potential-employment-condition