Amid a renewed return-to-office push, experts outline what your options are
Remote and hybrid work spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic is giving way to arrangements more closely aligned with traditional office norms now that labour market conditions have swung in companies' favour. Some of Canada's largest financial services firms, including several of the big banks, have said they will shift to four in-office days a week beginning in the fall.
Employment lawyers say they are hearing from clients who don't want to lose one or more of their at-home days, but that companies are taking a harder line compared with a few years ago when a lower unemployment rate meant the market favoured job-seekers rather than their bosses.
'Now, it seems with economic uncertainty, employers have bigger leverage to basically impose unilaterally that kind of stuff and tell people, 'If you don't like it, you might as well go,'' Philippe de Villers, the chair of Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Canada, said in an interview.
If you're in that situation, it may feel like you must choose between getting with the program or getting a new job. Though that may be true in many cases, experts say there are some other options.
The basic choice
One option for employees who don't want to return to the office is to look for another job, said Sunira Chaudhri, founder and partner at Workly Law, in an interview.
'Employees are considering career changes en masse, and as you can expect, those that are facing a stricter return to work protocol that do not align with that are, more likely than not, looking to jump ship and find a more flexible arrangement if they're simply not on board.'
Return to office trends are more common with enterprise-level companies like banks and accounting firms compared with small businesses or ones in industries more concerned about retaining talent, Jon Pinkus, employment lawyer and partner at Samfiru Tumarkin, said in an interview.
BMO, RBC and Scotiabank have all stated that more workers will be required to be in the office four days a week beginning in the fall, citing operational improvements and opportunities for collaboration.
If an employee doesn't wish to leave their current position, and doesn't require an accommodation based on their family status or medical needs, they may need to comply with return-to-office mandates set by their employer.
Family status
Exceptions may need to be made based on family circumstances.
Family status is an issue that may require accommodation, and one where employers must be 'pretty careful,' Chaudhri said, as many employees with young children have framed their days around childcare responsibilities.
She said childcare responsibilities may need to be accommodated if they cannot be met by going back into the office on a full-time basis. For example, she said it may be difficult for someone to pick up a child from daycare if they are required to be in downtown Toronto until 5 p.m.
'If it's just impossible or unreasonable for an employee to make those types of changes, an employee can seek an accommodation with respect to family status, and say, 'I actually have to be in my neighbourhood at 4:30 p.m.,' as an example,' Chaudhri said.
Medical accommodations
If a person's medical needs have changed since they were in the office on a more full-time basis before 2020, Chaudhri said employers may need to consider medical accommodations.
'Employers need to be pretty aware and cognizant of the fact that accommodations might need to be a real part of the conversation of moving people back to work most of the time,' she said.
Pinkus said medical accommodations are one of the most common issues he is seeing among clients regarding return-to-office mandates.
He said employees may need accommodations for issues that may make it difficult for an employee to drive or sit for long periods. Other issues could include things like access to medication that may not be practical to bring into an office or needing to be close to a hospital or doctor.
'You do have an obligation as an employer to accommodate someone up to the point of what's called undue hardship,' Pinkus said.
Undue hardship refers to a significant difficulty or expense related to accommodating an employee's needs or requests, according to Toronto-based law firm Achkar Law.
Legal action
Pinkus said if an employee started working from home full time during the COVID-19 pandemic, and their employer didn't communicate whether the arrangement was temporary or permanent, but is now trying to get them back into the office four days a week, it could be considered a breach of contract.
However, he said that if there was clear communication by the employer that remote working wouldn't last forever, it would be more difficult for an employee to launch any legal action.
Pinkus said employees considering refusing to return to the office should be 'very careful' because if their employer did have the right to compel a return to the office, it could be considered abandonment of employment — meaning the worker is not entitled to severance pay.
'If you're wrong about it, the consequences are quite serious.'
Under certain circumstances, Pinkus and Chaudhri say a constructive dismissal may factor in.
According to Pinkus, constructive dismissal can occur if an employer changes the fundamental term of their employment without sufficient notice and without the employee's consent.
'There is precedent for the notion that an employer can't simply take someone from a telecommuting role and put them in a non-telecommuting role without their permission,' he said.
Monday Mornings
The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week.
If an employer has stuck with a remote or hybrid working arrangement for a long time, then Chaudhri said some employees might say 'this is my new normal,' and the return to office constitutes a 'meaningful change to my employment.'
'In some cases, employees may allege that their contract of employment has been breached and seek wrongful dismissal damages,' she said.
Chaudhri added that companies have been very systematic about slowly increasing in office days over time, which she thinks is in large part to avoid 'the likelihood of success of a constructive dismissal claim.'
She said it is up to the employee to prove they have been constructively dismissed, which can be difficult.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 6, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Labour groups, lawyers hope fall of Hudson's Bay will spur change for workers
TORONTO – When Hudson's Bay employees rallied in front of two of the iconic retailer's properties in late May, days before the retailer closed its doors for good, they knew there was no hope of saving their jobs. Their goal instead was to encourage lawmakers to make the fall of the 355-year-old retailer — and all the failed companies that follow it — a little less painful for employees. They argued that could be done if the government adopted their wish list of ideas ranging from boosting federal support programs to prioritizing workers rather than lenders when companies in creditor protection are repaying what they owe. Such ideas were previously bandied around in labour circles when the Canadian divisions of Sears, Target and Nordstrom collapsed. This time, they're hoping the momentum lasts. 'When you're looking for these kinds of improvements, you will have ebbs and flows, but right now, we have an opportunity because the Bay situation is fresh in people's minds' said Lana Payne, president of Unifor. Her union orchestrated the rallies at one of the retailer's distribution centres in Toronto's Scarborough and another in front of a Windsor, Ont. store because Unifor represents about 595 of the 9,364 employees that worked at Canada's oldest company before it filed for creditor protection in March. The workers were told they will not get termination or severance pay and lost health, dental and life insurance benefits. A law firm representing them has warned that 'given HBC's significant amount of secured debt, it is not clear that employees will be able to recover any amounts owing to them directly from HBC.' The company has blamed its troubles on the COVID-19 pandemic, depressed store traffic and tariffs. After it failed to attract investors that would keep the company alive, it started to sell off its remaining assets in hopes of recouping as much as possible for the thousands of creditors. Back of the line When Canadian companies file for creditor protection, the various groups owed money are often left to jockey for what little cash remains, knowing there usually won't be enough to go around. Secured lenders are typically first in line because they have collateral backing the money they lent, often well before a company sought a reprieve from the courts. In the Bay's case there are 26 pages' worth of creditors, including secured senior lenders Restore Capital, Pathlight Capital and Bank of America. They alone are owed hundreds of thousands of dollars and have started to recoup some of their losses because the Bay has been paying them with cash from its liquidation sales. Employees are on the list of creditors, but they are not listed as secured and the amount owing is marked 'TBD.' 'I think it's pretty clear that workers are not the priority in these kinds of cases,' Payne said. 'The legislation doesn't make them the priority and workers right now are feeling the results of that.' In the future, Unifor would like to see legislation changed so workers' termination and severance claims are paid first, Payne said. Susan Ursel, a lawyer representing Bay employees, agrees with the idea because 'employees are affected in a personal way by their employer's insolvency — losing their income and throwing their futures into uncertainty. 'Unlike sophisticated lenders, they are not able to negotiate security for the contractual promises of their employers and therefore fall behind those secured lenders in recovering money owed to them,' she wrote in an email. 'A legislative priority for employees would provide more certain and effective protection for employees, which we would welcome.' But Sunira Chaudhri, founding lawyer at Workly Law in Toronto, worries that change would scare away lenders long before creditor protection is on the horizon and when companies still have a shot at recovery. 'If employees were to be first in line … any employer that hired a lot of employees would be a bad bet for the banks,' she said. 'You'd want to lend money to them the least, because you'd never be able to recoup on a loan.' Jared Ong, an organizer with the Workers' Action Centre, has heard that argument before. He doesn't agree with it. 'Year on year, the major banks keep making billions more, but compare that to a worker who might be one or two paycheques away from losing a roof over their head,' he said. Existing supports Workers left without a job when their company goes under are typically able to lean on two federal government programs, but Ong said they need to be more generous. The first is employment insurance, which pays employees out of work a portion of their salary while they look for a new job. To qualify, applicants must have gone without work and pay for at least seven consecutive days in the last 52 weeks. The second is the Wage Earner Protection Program, which helps workers whose employees filed for creditor protection recoup owed wages, vacation, termination or severance pay. Bay employees have until Oct. 26 to apply for WEPP, after an extension to their deadline was granted by Service Canada. People who qualify under the program can earn up to $8,844.22 this year — a cap Unifor wants raised. Nadia Zaman, an employment lawyer at Rudner Law, thinks a higher ceiling makes sense, especially for workers who have been with a company for a long time. They generally wind up entitled to a lot more than WEPP's cap, so the program puts them 'essentially at a loss,' she said. While many people don't realize the program exists or understand some of the idiosyncrasies workers face when their company goes out of business, Zaman said the Bay is putting a spotlight on labour relations. 'A lot of people who haven't personally been through the situation, they are becoming more aware of it,' she said, 'And they are also looking for changes even if they haven't been personally affected.' The likelihood of turning that desire for change into actual change may seem 'grim,' acknowledged Ong at the Workers' Action Centre. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. Labour activists have seen momentum turn into disappointment before. For example, a 2014 Ontario bill pushing businesses to insure long-term disability benefits, so they'd be paid out even if an employer folded, passed, but was seemingly never enacted. Change, said Ong, is 'always a back-and-forth fight.' 'You win some things, you lose some things, government changes, but we need to keep pushing regardless of what happens.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 7, 2025.
Global News
16 hours ago
- Global News
What Canadians' options are as companies push a return to office
As the number of in-office days is set to increase for many of Canada's hybrid workers, return-to-office mandates are setting the stage for tension between employees and employers. Remote and hybrid work spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic is giving way to arrangements more closely aligned with traditional office norms now that labour market conditions have swung in companies' favour. Some of Canada's largest financial services firms, including several of the big banks, have said they will shift to four in-office days a week beginning in the fall. Employment lawyers say they are hearing from clients who don't want to lose one or more of their at-home days, but that companies are taking a harder line compared with a few years ago when a lower unemployment rate meant the market favoured job-seekers rather than their bosses. 'Now, it seems with economic uncertainty, employers have bigger leverage to basically impose unilaterally that kind of stuff and tell people, 'If you don't like it, you might as well go,'' Philippe de Villers, the chair of Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Canada, said in an interview. Story continues below advertisement If you're in that situation, it may feel like you must choose between getting with the program or getting a new job. Though that may be true in many cases, experts say there are some other options. The basic choice One option for employees who don't want to return to the office is to look for another job, said Sunira Chaudhri, founder and partner at Workly Law, in an interview. 'Employees are considering career changes en masse, and as you can expect, those that are facing a stricter return to work protocol that do not align with that are, more likely than not, looking to jump ship and find a more flexible arrangement if they're simply not on board.' 4:38 Calgary Downtown Association pushes for more workers to return to the office in the core Return to office trends are more common with enterprise-level companies like banks and accounting firms compared with small businesses or ones in industries more concerned about retaining talent, Jon Pinkus, employment lawyer and partner at Samfiru Tumarkin, said in an interview. Story continues below advertisement BMO, RBC and Scotiabank have all stated that more workers will be required to be in the office four days a week beginning in the fall, citing operational improvements and opportunities for collaboration. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy If an employee doesn't wish to leave their current position, and doesn't require an accommodation based on their family status or medical needs, they may need to comply with return-to-office mandates set by their employer. Family status Exceptions may need to be made based on family circumstances. Family status is an issue that may require accommodation, and one where employers must be 'pretty careful,' Chaudhri said, as many employees with young children have framed their days around childcare responsibilities. She said childcare responsibilities may need to be accommodated if they cannot be met by going back into the office on a full-time basis. For example, she said it may be difficult for someone to pick up a child from daycare if they are required to be in downtown Toronto until 5 p.m. 'If it's just impossible or unreasonable for an employee to make those types of changes, an employee can seek an accommodation with respect to family status, and say, 'I actually have to be in my neighbourhood at 4:30 p.m.,' as an example,' Chaudhri said. Medical accommodations If a person's medical needs have changed since they were in the office on a more full-time basis before 2020, Chaudhri said employers may need to consider medical accommodations. Story continues below advertisement 'Employers need to be pretty aware and cognizant of the fact that accommodations might need to be a real part of the conversation of moving people back to work most of the time,' she said. Pinkus said medical accommodations are one of the most common issues he is seeing among clients regarding return-to-office mandates. 1:55 Tech Talk: Dell's return-to-office roadblock & California's cellphone ban in schools He said employees may need accommodations for issues that may make it difficult for an employee to drive or sit for long periods. Other issues could include things like access to medication that may not be practical to bring into an office or needing to be close to a hospital or doctor. 'You do have an obligation as an employer to accommodate someone up to the point of what's called undue hardship,' Pinkus said. Undue hardship refers to a significant difficulty or expense related to accommodating an employee's needs or requests, according to Toronto-based law firm Achkar Law. Story continues below advertisement Legal action Pinkus said if an employee started working from home full time during the COVID-19 pandemic, and their employer didn't communicate whether the arrangement was temporary or permanent, but is now trying to get them back into the office four days a week, it could be considered a breach of contract. However, he said that if there was clear communication by the employer that remote working wouldn't last forever, it would be more difficult for an employee to launch any legal action. Pinkus said employees considering refusing to return to the office should be 'very careful' because if their employer did have the right to compel a return to the office, it could be considered abandonment of employment — meaning the worker is not entitled to severance pay. 'If you're wrong about it, the consequences are quite serious.' 3:11 BIV: Office vacancies hit record high in Downtown Vancouver Under certain circumstances, Pinkus and Chaudhri say a constructive dismissal may factor in. Story continues below advertisement According to Pinkus, constructive dismissal can occur if an employer changes the fundamental term of their employment without sufficient notice and without the employee's consent. 'There is precedent for the notion that an employer can't simply take someone from a telecommuting role and put them in a non-telecommuting role without their permission,' he said. If an employer has stuck with a remote or hybrid working arrangement for a long time, then Chaudhri said some employees might say 'this is my new normal,' and the return to office constitutes a 'meaningful change to my employment.' 'In some cases, employees may allege that their contract of employment has been breached and seek wrongful dismissal damages,' she said. Chaudhri added that companies have been very systematic about slowly increasing in office days over time, which she thinks is in large part to avoid 'the likelihood of success of a constructive dismissal claim.' She said it is up to the employee to prove they have been constructively dismissed, which can be difficult.
CTV News
a day ago
- CTV News
Amid a renewed return-to-office push, experts outline what your options are
Bank towers are pictured in the financial district in Toronto, Friday, Sept. 8, 2023. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Andrew Lahodynskyj As the number of in-office days is set to increase for many of Canada's hybrid workers, return-to-office mandates are setting the stage for tension between employees and employers. Remote and hybrid work spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic is giving way to arrangements more closely aligned with traditional office norms now that labour market conditions have swung in companies' favour. Some of Canada's largest financial services firms, including several of the big banks, have said they will shift to four in-office days a week beginning in the fall. Employment lawyers say they are hearing from clients who don't want to lose one or more of their at-home days, but that companies are taking a harder line compared with a few years ago when a lower unemployment rate meant the market favoured job-seekers rather than their bosses. 'Now, it seems with economic uncertainty, employers have bigger leverage to basically impose unilaterally that kind of stuff and tell people, 'If you don't like it, you might as well go,'' Philippe de Villers, the chair of Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Canada, said in an interview. If you're in that situation, it may feel like you must choose between getting with the program or getting a new job. Though that may be true in many cases, experts say there are some other options. The basic choice One option for employees who don't want to return to the office is to look for another job, said Sunira Chaudhri, founder and partner at Workly Law, in an interview. 'Employees are considering career changes en masse, and as you can expect, those that are facing a stricter return to work protocol that do not align with that are, more likely than not, looking to jump ship and find a more flexible arrangement if they're simply not on board.' Return to office trends are more common with enterprise-level companies like banks and accounting firms compared with small businesses or ones in industries more concerned about retaining talent, Jon Pinkus, employment lawyer and partner at Samfiru Tumarkin, said in an interview. BMO, RBC and Scotiabank have all stated that more workers will be required to be in the office four days a week beginning in the fall, citing operational improvements and opportunities for collaboration. If an employee doesn't wish to leave their current position, and doesn't require an accommodation based on their family status or medical needs, they may need to comply with return-to-office mandates set by their employer. Family status Exceptions may need to be made based on family circumstances. Family status is an issue that may require accommodation, and one where employers must be 'pretty careful,' Chaudhri said, as many employees with young children have framed their days around childcare responsibilities. She said childcare responsibilities may need to be accommodated if they cannot be met by going back into the office on a full-time basis. For example, she said it may be difficult for someone to pick up a child from daycare if they are required to be in downtown Toronto until 5 p.m. 'If it's just impossible or unreasonable for an employee to make those types of changes, an employee can seek an accommodation with respect to family status, and say, 'I actually have to be in my neighbourhood at 4:30 p.m.,' as an example,' Chaudhri said. Medical accommodations If a person's medical needs have changed since they were in the office on a more full-time basis before 2020, Chaudhri said employers may need to consider medical accommodations. 'Employers need to be pretty aware and cognizant of the fact that accommodations might need to be a real part of the conversation of moving people back to work most of the time,' she said. Pinkus said medical accommodations are one of the most common issues he is seeing among clients regarding return-to-office mandates. He said employees may need accommodations for issues that may make it difficult for an employee to drive or sit for long periods. Other issues could include things like access to medication that may not be practical to bring into an office or needing to be close to a hospital or doctor. 'You do have an obligation as an employer to accommodate someone up to the point of what's called undue hardship,' Pinkus said. Undue hardship refers to a significant difficulty or expense related to accommodating an employee's needs or requests, according to Toronto-based law firm Achkar Law. Legal action Pinkus said if an employee started working from home full time during the COVID-19 pandemic, and their employer didn't communicate whether the arrangement was temporary or permanent, but is now trying to get them back into the office four days a week, it could be considered a breach of contract. However, he said that if there was clear communication by the employer that remote working wouldn't last forever, it would be more difficult for an employee to launch any legal action. Pinkus said employees considering refusing to return to the office should be 'very careful' because if their employer did have the right to compel a return to the office, it could be considered abandonment of employment — meaning the worker is not entitled to severance pay. 'If you're wrong about it, the consequences are quite serious.' Under certain circumstances, Pinkus and Chaudhri say a constructive dismissal may factor in. According to Pinkus, constructive dismissal can occur if an employer changes the fundamental term of their employment without sufficient notice and without the employee's consent. 'There is precedent for the notion that an employer can't simply take someone from a telecommuting role and put them in a non-telecommuting role without their permission,' he said. If an employer has stuck with a remote or hybrid working arrangement for a long time, then Chaudhri said some employees might say 'this is my new normal,' and the return to office constitutes a 'meaningful change to my employment.' 'In some cases, employees may allege that their contract of employment has been breached and seek wrongful dismissal damages,' she said. Chaudhri added that companies have been very systematic about slowly increasing in office days over time, which she thinks is in large part to avoid 'the likelihood of success of a constructive dismissal claim.' She said it is up to the employee to prove they have been constructively dismissed, which can be difficult. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 6, 2025. Daniel Johnson, The Canadian Press
