An Alberta court has found that a 37-year employee was constructively dismissed when her employer required her to shift from a longstanding work-from-home arrangement to full-time in-office attendance with less than three months’ notice.
In a summary judgment ruling, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta determined that M.N., who worked as an office manager for a vein clinic operated by 628810 Alberta Ltd., was entitled to treat her employment as terminated due to the significant unilateral change in her working conditions.
The court concluded that the company’s directive constituted a fundamental alteration to M.N.’s employment contract, which had allowed her to work remotely since her start in 1986. “This was not a return to work arrangement of the type that was common after the COVID pandemic,” the court stated. “This was an arrangement where the work was always from home.”
Change in terms followed ownership shift
The employment dispute arose following a change in ownership at the clinic. According to the ruling, the company imposed what it termed a “return to the office” initiative, requiring M.N. to begin working in-office on a full-time basis. The court rejected the characterization, finding that “the plaintiff quite properly pointed out that this was not a ‘return to the office’. She had always worked from home and that is what her job permitted.”
At the time the change was implemented, M.N.’s husband had also fallen ill, compounding the impact of the mandate.
M.N. refused the initial requirement and retained legal counsel, who advised the employer that the change constituted a constructive dismissal. In response, the company proposed a modified arrangement—2.5 days per week in-office—accompanied by a stipulation that it reserved the right to revert to full-time attendance at its discretion.
The court found that this “was not strictly a 2.5 days per week in the office offer, but an offer of 2.5 days and perhaps more in the future.” M.N. did not accept the proposal.
Mitigation offer not reasonable under Wronko principles
In its defence, the employer argued that even if there had been a constructive dismissal, M.N. failed to mitigate her damages by not accepting the part-time in-office arrangement. The court rejected this, relying on the Ontario Court of Appeal’s framework in Wronko v. Western Inventory Service Ltd. to conclude that the offer could not negate the finding of constructive dismissal.
“This case engages consideration of the second option referenced [in Wronko],” the court wrote, referring to the right of an employee to reject a fundamental unilateral change and treat the employment as terminated. “To foist that term upon the employee instead by way of a mitigation obligation would be to ignore the options available to the employee that arise from the fundamental change.”
The court concluded that “a reasonable bystander would not expect the plaintiff to accept the offer that was made after the constructive dismissal was effected,” and ruled that M.N. was not required to accept the mitigation proposal under the circumstances.
Remote work found to be a core term of employment
In reviewing the evidentiary record, the court found that the plaintiff’s work-from-home arrangement was not informal or occasional but instead “an integral part of the plaintiff’s employment contract for the duration of her work.” M.N. did attend the office as needed over the years, but this was “largely at her own discretion.”
The record, based largely on written communications, was found to be sufficient to make a determination on the issue. “Those arrangements worked for 37 years,” the court noted. “Presumably, if working in that fashion was problematical for carrying out job duties, that would have revealed itself over the 37 year period of employment.”
Court to determine damages following written submissions
The court deferred its ruling on damages, noting that while the application made clear the plaintiff sought a determination of quantum, the written submissions from both parties were primarily focused on the issue of constructive dismissal.
The court invited brief written submissions of no more than 10 pages from each side on the notice period and any outstanding mitigation issues. M.N. is to submit within four weeks, with the employer given an additional two weeks to respond.
“This is a case where the notice period can be determined fairly based upon the record before the Court,” the decision stated, noting that the parties are presumed to have “put their best foot forward.”
The court also signalled a shift in litigation culture, consistent with recent case law encouraging the resolution of wrongful dismissal claims through summary judgment where appropriate. “I find that [this modern approach] applies in this case,” the judge noted, adding that summary adjudication on both liability and damages is now increasingly seen as a viable alternative to full trials in wrongful dismissal disputes involving unliquidated claims.
For more information, see Nickles v 628810 Alberta Ltd., 2025 ABKB 212 (CanLII).
