Key Takeaways
- Flexible work arrangements may carry legal weight
- Long-standing remote or flexible work arrangements can become implied terms of employment, even without formal written agreements.
- Caregiving accommodations matter
- The court considered the history of flexibility tied to parenting responsibilities and the employer’s repeated support of those arrangements.
- Employers cannot always reverse flexibility overnight
- Sudden return-to-office requirements may constitute constructive dismissal if they fundamentally alter established working conditions.
- Informal workplace practices still count
- Repeated verbal approvals and years of consistent conduct can shape employment obligations.
For years, employers framed flexibility as temporary, informal, or exceptional. But for many working parents — especially mothers — flexible work became the infrastructure that made paid work possible.
A recent BC Supreme Court decision, Parolin v. Cressey Construction Corporation, reflects a growing legal recognition of that reality. The case examines what happens when an employer abruptly revokes a long-standing flexible work arrangement and whether that change can amount to constructive dismissal.
The court’s answer: yes, it can.
This decision matters because it reinforces something many mothers already know firsthand: flexible work is often treated as “optional” by employers, even after years of being actively supported, encouraged, and relied upon.
What Happened?
Ms. Parolin worked for Vancouver-based developer Cressey Construction for 18 years. Over time, she advanced into the role of Director of Marketing and had long-standing flexible work arrangements connected to her caregiving responsibilities.
According to the court, the company had supported flexible scheduling since 2013. During and after the COVID-19 pandemic, Ms. Parolin also worked remotely, with the company repeatedly reinforcing that her physical location did not matter as long as the work was completed.
In 2023, the company:
- revoked her flexible work arrangement,
- required her to return to a regular in-office 9-to-5 schedule,
- minimized her role by comparing her work to that of a lower-level marketing manager, and
- offered a compensation increase that the court found reflected that lower-level framing.
Ms. Parolin argued these changes fundamentally altered the terms of her employment and amounted to constructive dismissal.
The court agreed.
The BC Supreme Court awarded her 19 months’ notice damages totaling $148,200.
Why This Case Matters
This case is not simply about remote work.
It is about:
- caregiving,
- workplace flexibility,
- how informal arrangements become normalized over time,
- and what employers can — and cannot — suddenly take away.
Many mothers spent years proving they could perform at high levels while working flexible schedules. During the pandemic, employers across industries adapted quickly when they needed workers to remain productive from home.
Now, as return-to-office mandates increase, many employees are discovering that arrangements once presented as sustainable and supported are suddenly being reframed as temporary exceptions.
This case challenges that assumption.
Flexible Work Can Become Part of an Employment Contract
One of the most important aspects of this decision is that the flexibility arrangement was not based solely on a formal written policy.
Instead, the court looked at:
- years of consistent practice,
- verbal agreements,
- employer approval,
- workplace conduct, and
- repeated reinforcement of the arrangement.
The judge found that flexible scheduling and remote work had become implied terms of Ms. Parolin’s employment contract.
That matters because employers often assume flexibility remains discretionary forever — even after years of operating that way.
This decision suggests courts may view long-standing arrangements differently.
The Court Also Examined Gender and Caregiving Dynamics
The decision also included evidence that company executives made dismissive comments related to Ms. Parolin’s caregiving responsibilities and compared her unfavourably to a male colleague with children who continued working standard office hours.
The court ultimately declined to award punitive damages, finding the employer’s conduct careless and dismissive rather than malicious.
Still, the details reflect something many working mothers recognize immediately:
caregiving accommodations are often treated differently depending on who is asking for them.
Women are still frequently expected to quietly absorb the logistical burden of parenting while maintaining the appearance of uninterrupted workplace availability.
Return-to-Office Policies Are Not Risk-Free
Employers generally do have the right to direct where employees work.
But this case reinforces that context matters.
If an employee has worked under a long-standing remote, hybrid, or flexible arrangement — particularly one repeatedly approved and supported by the employer — abruptly revoking that arrangement without notice may create legal risk.
As more companies push return-to-office mandates, this decision may become increasingly relevant across Canadian workplaces.
FAQ
Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer makes major unilateral changes to fundamental terms of employment, effectively forcing an employee out of their role.
Yes. This case reinforces that long-standing remote or flexible work arrangements may become implied contractual terms through practice and employer conduct.
No. Employers can generally require office attendance, but they may need to provide proper notice if remote or flexible work has become an established condition of employment.
Many mothers rely on flexible work arrangements to balance paid work and caregiving responsibilities. This decision recognizes that those arrangements may have legal significance.
Employment law differs across provinces, but courts across Canada often consider decisions from other jurisdictions when examining similar workplace issues.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
This article discusses Parolin v. Cressey Construction Corporation and references reporting and legal commentary originally published by Steinman Law.
Read the full court decision here:
CanLII – Parolin v. Cressey Construction Corporation, 2025 BCSC 741
Join the Moms at Work weekly newsletter
Stay up-to-date on everything that's going on in the employment world
