Can My Employer Force Me to Return to the Office After Years of Working From Home?

When working from home becomes part of your employment agreement, returning to the office may be more than a change in workplace policy.

The email arrived on a Monday morning.

“Effective November 1, all employees will be required to work from the office five days a week. Remote work arrangements will no longer be permitted.”

For some employees, it was an inconvenience. They would have to adjust their commute, leave home earlier and perhaps spend more on parking.

For one employee, it felt as though the life she had carefully built over the past four years was about to unravel.

Let’s call her Sarah. Sarah had worked for the same Calgary company for almost nine years. Before the pandemic, she worked from the office like everyone else. But when the company moved to remote work, something unexpected happened. Her productivity improved. Her employer noticed. She was promoted, given additional responsibilities and repeatedly praised for her performance.

When the offices reopened, Sarah asked whether she could continue working from home. Her manager agreed. There was no formal amendment to her employment agreement, but everyone understood the arrangement. For the next three years, she worked remotely, attended meetings virtually and occasionally went into the office when necessary.

Her children were still young. Her husband worked shifts. Over time, the family had organized its life around the arrangement.

She no longer had to rush through Calgary traffic every morning, worrying about whether she would make it to school pickup. She could begin her workday earlier, finish her responsibilities and still be present for her family.

She had never missed a deadline. Her performance reviews were consistently positive. Nobody had suggested that working from home was affecting her ability to do her job.

And now, with one email, everything was changing.

When Sarah approached her manager, she was told that the decision had come from senior management.

“It’s company policy now. Everyone has to come back.”

Hoping there might still be room for some flexibility, Sarah approached her manager and explained how important the arrangement had become to her family. She asked whether the company might consider making an exception, particularly given her years of strong performance and the fact that she had successfully worked from home without any concerns being raised.

Her manager was sympathetic but firm. The decision had already been made, and no exceptions were being considered. Not ready to give up, Sarah suggested a compromise. Perhaps she could return to the office two days a week and continue working remotely for the remaining three. It seemed reasonable to her, especially since she had demonstrated that she could perform her responsibilities effectively from home, but her manager would not budge. The directive applied to everyone, and she was expected to comply.

Then came the sentence that stayed with her long after the meeting ended.

“If you can’t return to the office, we’ll have to treat that as your resignation.”

Sarah went home that evening wondering how a job she had performed successfully for years could suddenly become one she was being told she could no longer keep.

During our consultation she had one question.

Can my employer really force me to return to the office after allowing me to work from home for years?

When a Workplace Policy Becomes an Employment Law Issue

Some employers assume they have an unrestricted right to decide where employees perform their work. To an extent, employers do have the authority to organize their workplaces, establish operational requirements and introduce reasonable workplace policies. An employer may genuinely believe that employees collaborate better in person, that workplace culture has suffered or that certain responsibilities require physical attendance.

Those considerations are not necessarily unreasonable. However, an employer’s right to manage its business does not automatically give it the right to disregard the terms of an employment agreement. This is where Sarah’s situation becomes legally significant.

The question is not simply whether her employer can introduce a return-to-office policy. The question is whether requiring Sarah to return to the office fundamentally changes the employment relationship she and her employer have established.

Under Canadian employment law, that question may engage the doctrine of constructive dismissal.

What Is Constructive Dismissal?

Most people understand dismissal as the moment an employer tells an employee that their employment has ended.

But an employer does not necessarily have to say, “You’re fired,” for a dismissal to occur in law.

Sometimes, an employer makes such a significant change to the employment relationship that the law may treat the employer as having effectively terminated the original employment contract.

That is constructive dismissal.

The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the principles governing constructive dismissal in Farber v. Royal Trust Co., [1997] 1 SCR 846, and later in Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10.

In Potter, the Supreme Court explained that constructive dismissal may arise where an employer unilaterally makes a substantial change to an essential term of the employment contract, or where the employer’s conduct, considered as a whole, demonstrates an intention no longer to be bound by the employment relationship.

The assessment is objective. The employee’s unhappiness with the change, standing alone, is not enough. The question is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s circumstances would consider the change sufficiently substantial to alter an essential term of the employment contract.

An employer asking employees to attend an occasional in-person meeting is not necessarily doing the same thing as requiring someone who has worked remotely for years to return to the office permanently.

The degree of change, the contractual terms and the surrounding circumstances all matter. Moreover, Alberta courts have now considered this very issue.

An Alberta Court Considered Almost This Exact Question

In Nickles v. 628810 Alberta Ltd., 2025 ABKB 212, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench considered a dispute involving a long-serving employee whose established working arrangement was fundamentally altered.

The employee had worked predominantly from home for approximately 37 years. Her work arrangement allowed her to attend the employer’s office, when necessary, rather than requiring daily attendance.

Following a change in ownership, the employer sought to require her to work from the office full-time.

The employer gave her less than three months’ notice of the change.

The employee argued that the requirement fundamentally altered an essential term of her employment.

The Court agreed that the longstanding remote-work arrangement had become a fundamental term of the employment relationship and that the unilateral requirement to attend the office full-time amounted to constructive dismissal.

The significance of the decision is not that every employee who works from home can refuse to return to the office.

It is that an established remote-work arrangement may become an essential contractual term, even where the employer later decides it would prefer a different arrangement.

The length of the arrangement, the parties’ conduct and the importance of the working arrangement to the employment relationship may all become relevant.

For employees like Sarah, that distinction is critical.

A British Columbia Decision Makes the Point Even Clearer

Another important decision is Parolin v. Cressey Construction Corporation, 2025 BCSC 741, subsequently upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin, 2026 BCCA 199.

Tracy Parolin had worked for her employer for approximately 18 years.

During the pandemic, she began working remotely. Unlike employees who eventually returned to the office, she obtained permission to continue working from home, partly because of concerns relating to her child’s health.

Her employer knew about the arrangement and allowed it to continue for several years. Eventually, she was directed to return to the office full-time. She treated the change as constructive dismissal.

The trial court concluded that her remote-work arrangement had become a binding term of her employment contract, notwithstanding that the agreement was not formally documented in writing. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of constructive dismissal.

Importantly, the appellate court recognized that the parties had established an express oral term permitting her to work from home. That term was essential to the employment relationship and could not be unilaterally withdrawn without reasonable notice in the circumstances. The Court upheld an award equivalent to 19 months’ reasonable notice.

That does not mean employees who are ordered back to the office are automatically entitled to 19 months’ compensation.

The award reflected Ms. Parolin’s particular circumstances, including her age, length of service and position.

But the decision reinforces an important principle.

An employment agreement is not defined only by what was written on the day the employee was hired.

The parties’ subsequent agreements and conduct may also matter.

And an employer cannot necessarily escape its contractual obligations simply by describing a fundamental change as a new workplace policy.

Does Working From Home for Several Years Automatically Give You a Permanent Right to Work Remotely?

The short answer is no.

The fact that an employer allowed employees to work from home during the pandemic does not automatically mean that remote work became a permanent contractual entitlement. Some employers expressly stated that remote work was temporary. Others reserved the right to require employees to return to the workplace.

An employee’s contract may also contain provisions addressing work location or the employer’s ability to modify working arrangements. Those provisions must be examined in their proper contractual context, including whether they are enforceable.

The circumstances in which remote work began are also important. Was it introduced as an emergency measure during the pandemic? Was the employee later expressly told that the arrangement could continue indefinitely? Did the employer approve a permanent move away from the office? Did the employee accept a promotion or change their working hours in reliance on the arrangement? And how did the parties behave after the pandemic restrictions ended?

An arrangement that began as a temporary accommodation may, through subsequent agreement, become something more permanent, but the mere passage of time does not automatically answer that question.

That is why constructive dismissal claims require careful examination of the actual employment relationship, not simply the employer’s latest policy or the employee’s preferred working arrangement.

What If Returning to the Office Creates Serious Family Difficulties?

For some employees, returning to the office is inconvenient. For others, it may create significant caregiving difficulties. Those circumstances should not automatically be treated as legally equivalent.

Under the Alberta Human Rights Act, employers must not discriminate against employees on protected grounds, including family status and physical or mental disability.

Depending on the circumstances, an employee may have a legitimate accommodation issue that requires consideration.

For example, an employee who has significant childcare obligations that cannot reasonably be met under a proposed schedule may raise a family-status accommodation issue. An employee whose disability-related limitations affect their ability to attend the workplace may require accommodation on the basis of disability.

But the existence of childcare responsibilities does not automatically establish discrimination, and a preference for working from home does not, by itself, create a right to accommodation.

The employee must establish the relevant connection to a protected ground, and the employer’s accommodation obligations must be assessed in light of the applicable legal test, the employee’s circumstances and undue hardship. This is a separate legal question from constructive dismissal.

An employee may have a contractual right to continue working remotely without having a human rights claim. Conversely, an employee may require accommodation even where the employment contract permits the employer to determine the work location.

Understanding which legal issue is actually engaged is essential.

What Should You Do If Your Employer Orders You Back to the Office?

If you receive a return-to-office directive that substantially changes an established working arrangement, the first thing I would caution against is making an immediate decision to resign.

Constructive dismissal can have serious financial consequences, and not every unilateral change will meet the legal threshold. Here are a few important steps to consider:

• Gather Documentation: Start by reviewing your employment agreement, any remote-work policies and the communications that established or confirmed your working arrangement.
• Locate Proof: If your manager approved permanent remote work, look for emails, messages, performance reviews or other records that help establish what was agreed.
• Assess the Impact: Consider how the proposed change affects the actual terms of your employment. Is it simply a return to an arrangement contemplated by your contract, or is the employer attempting to withdraw something that became an essential part of the relationship?
• Communicate Professionally: Ask the employer to explain the change, the proposed implementation date and whether alternatives are available. Then communicate your concerns clearly and professionally.

If you believe the directive breaches your employment agreement, you should obtain legal advice promptly about how to preserve your position.

This is important because continuing to work under substantially changed conditions without objection may, depending on the circumstances, be treated as acceptance of those conditions.

At the same time, refusing to attend work or resigning prematurely can create significant risks if the change does not legally amount to constructive dismissal.

There is no universal rule requiring every employee to resign immediately, and employees should not assume that a written objection indefinitely preserves all their rights.

The appropriate response depends on the contract, the change, the employer’s conduct and the employee’s circumstances.

The decision deserves more than an emotional reaction to an unexpected email.

Back to Sarah

Sarah did not resign that Monday.

She was upset, certainly. She felt that years of loyalty and consistent performance had suddenly counted for very little.

But she also understood that her frustration, however justified it felt, was not the same thing as establishing a legal claim.

She gathered the emails confirming her remote-work arrangement. She located the message in which her manager had agreed she could continue working from home after the office reopened. She reviewed her employment agreement and her most recent performance evaluations.

Then she wrote to her employer explaining why the arrangement mattered, asking whether the directive could be reconsidered and requesting clarification about the contractual basis for the change.

She also sought legal advice before deciding whether to accept the directive, negotiate an alternative or pursue a constructive dismissal claim.

The outcome was not guaranteed.

Her employer might have contractual authority to require her return. The parties might negotiate a hybrid arrangement. Or the evidence might establish that the employer was attempting to unilaterally change an essential term of her employment.

But Sarah had moved from feeling powerless to understanding the legal questions that mattered after her consultation.

Can Your Employer Force You Back to the Office in Alberta?

The answer is that it depends on the employment agreement and the circumstances surrounding the remote-work arrangement. Employers generally have legitimate authority to establish workplace policies and operational requirements, but that authority is not unlimited.

Where remote work has become an essential term of employment, a unilateral requirement to return to the office may amount to constructive dismissal.

The Alberta decision in Nickles and the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in Parolin demonstrate why employers and employees should be cautious about assuming that a long-established working arrangement can simply be withdrawn without legal consequences.

For employees, the most important thing is to understand your contractual position before deciding what to do next.

A return-to-office directive may look like an ordinary workplace policy. In some circumstances, it may fundamentally change the employment bargain.

Has Your Employer Changed Your Remote-Work Arrangement?

If you have worked remotely for several years and your employer is now requiring you to return to the office, it is important to understand your rights before resigning, refusing the directive or accepting a significant change to your employment.

Contact KedgeAnchor Law to discuss your situation and determine the appropriate next step.

This article provides general legal information and is not legal advice. Employment rights and obligations depend on the particular facts, the applicable legislation and the terms of the employment relationship.