As return to work mandates continue to roll out across the workplace, a pressing employment question emerges: could such evolving workplace norms be interpreted as a unilateral change to the terms of an employee’s employment such that it could amount to a constructive dismissal claim? The Alberta Court of King’s Bench recently explored this topic in Nickles v 628810 Alberta Ltd., 2025 ABKB 212, where the plaintiff sought summary judgment in an alleged wrongful dismissal matter. Nickles was the office manager for a vein clinic from 1986 to 2023. She worked from home for the majority of this time and would only attend the office when required at her own discretion. Upon the defendant’s change in ownership, the plaintiff was provided with 3 months’ notice to “return” to working from the office full time. The plaintiff asserted that she had been constructively dismissed as this requirement to work full time in the office amounted to a significant change in her employment terms. The defendant did try to negotiate 2.5 days a week in office after Nickels asserted that she had been constructively dismissed. However, the employer’s proposal was still subject to a reservation of the right to require full time attendance in the future. Accordingly, the plaintiff refused the offer. The Court concluded that the record was sufficient to determine the issue of constructive dismissal, specifically considering the following: This return-to-work arrangement was not the same as the COVID return to work template since the Plaintiff had been working from home for 37 years; and Work from home arrangements were an integral part of the plaintiff’s employment throughout the duration of her term with the defendant employer. On this issue of mitigation, the Court did consider the defendants offer to reduce the in person work days to 2.5 days a week with potential further office time being required in the future. The Court referred to the Wronko v Western Inventory Service Ltd, 2008 ONCA 327 to conclude that a reasonable bystander would not require the plaintiff to accept such an offer to form part of her mitigation obligations, stating that the employer was attempting to foist the mandatory in office term on the employee as a mitigation obligation. This decision contemplates that long term work from home arrangements can become an essential term of employment. Where remote work has been the norm for a substantial period of time, an employer’s unilateral requirement to return to full time, in office attendance, may constitute a fundamental change giving rise to constructive dismissal. Further, attempts by the employer to enforce these changes in the form of a mitigation offer to the employee may not necessarily shield the employer from liability, nor impose a mitigation duty to accept on the employee. For Alberta employers, the case serves as a reminder that operational changes to work location must be carefully considered. Where remote work has become entrenched for a number of years for an employee, the employer may be required to negotiate a reasonable notice transition as opposed to unilaterally imposing the change with insufficient notice.