Labour and Employment Law

198

Working Remotely: Now and Forever?

“I’d like to make a job offer to this candidate. The work will be performed remotely, from home. Can I change this condition at a later date?”

In a decision rendered on 16 March 2023, the Administrative Labour Tribunal confirmed that employers have management rights that allows them to require their employees to return to work in person1. In this case, there was no formal agreement between the employee and the employer regarding teleworking.

Despite the fact that government restrictions have long been lifted, a number of employers have continued to offer their employees the possibility of carrying out their work remotely. According to the case law cited above, in the absence of a specific agreement in this regard, the employer retains the right to require its employees to return to the office.

However, we believe that the unilateral modification of working conditions, such as the possibility of performing work remotely, entails risks of constructive dismissal allegations and complaints. Implicit or verbal agreements may constitute essential working conditions for an employee. As such, any ambiguity may end up being unfavourable to the employer.

Teleworking has become an attractive workforce retention tool. However, a company’s operational needs can change over time. That is why it is important to allow a certain amount of flexibility within the terms and conditions surrounding an employee’s permission to carry out his or her work remotely.

A simple solution for limiting risks and preserving management rights with regard to an employee’s work location is to include a teleworking clause in employment contracts or offers of employment.

The Key Elements of the “Telework clause”:

  • The location where the employee performs his or her work can be changed unilaterally by the employer;
  • The possibility of performing work remotely is a privilege, not a right;
  • The possibility of performing work remotely is not an essential condition of the employment contract;

These elements may also be included in a telework policy applicable to all employees, which may include employees’ obligations in terms of health and safety at work, directives concerning the protection of confidential data and information, the monitoring and supervision measures used by the employer, and the allocation of costs relating to telework equipment, etc.

In the absence of a specific clause or policy to this effect and in order to limit any risks, we recommend providing a reasonable notice to employees who have been teleworking for some time before changing their working conditions.

For advice tailored to your needs, consult a member of our Labour and Employment Law Group.

1Drake v. Équipement Trans Continental ltée, 2023 QCTAT 1218, par. 27;

198

Articles in the same category

Ruin Finds a Reason

In Société d’assurance Beneva Inc. c. Ville de Sherbrooke, 2026 QCCA 1301, the Court of Appeal delivers a decision as concise as it is compelling on liability arising from the ruin of an immovable, in a case involving the rupture of a water main. Its impact could extend well beyond underground pipe failures. The Facts […]

There Is No Point in Submitting a Bid Without Conducting Your Research First

In 9329-0146 Québec Inc. (M. Potvin Excavation) v. City of Saint-Constant, 2026 QCCA 1199, the Quebec Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principles governing a contracting authority’s duty to provide information and a bidder’s corresponding duty to seek clarification where necessary. The Facts  In May 2020, the City of Saint-Constant issued a public call for bids […]

2026 World Cup: FIFA Can Commercialise the Tournament, But Not Trust

Introduction With 48 teams, 104 matches, three host countries and 39 days of competition, the 2026 World Cup was already destined to make history because of its sheer scale. On the field, with a transformed VAR system (Video Assistant Referee) and FIFA’s new regulations, every player action was subjected to microscopic scrutiny. Off the field, […]

An Insurer Is Not Required to Uncover What the Insured Was Required to Disclose

In Kayembe-Kabeya v. Industrielle Alliance, assurance et services financiers inc., 2026 QCCS 1714, the Superior Court sets the record straight on the principle of contractual “utmost good faith”. The Facts In September 2019, Ms. Ricady Mede (hereinafter “Mede”) purchased a life insurance policy from Industrielle Alliance (hereinafter the “Insurer”). A few months later, she died of […]

When it’s too late for latent defects…

The Superior Court recently rendered a judgment in Reinert v. Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc., 2026 QCCS 2276, dealing with timeliness to give notice in cases of latent defects. The Facts In 2013, Ms. Sylvie Reinert and Mr. Denis Leclerc retained Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc. (“CMB”) for the construction of a residential building on a vacant lot in Lévis. […]

Insurance Math: One Claim, Two Fires, Three Points of Origin, Zero Recovery: When Circumstantial Evidence Speaks Louder Than a Confession

In Chatel v. Desjardins Insurance, 2026 QCCS 712, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed a principle of insurance law: direct evidence is not required to establish an intentional fault. Mr. Chatel claimed $532,000 under his homeowner’s insurance policy following two fires that occurred four days apart. The first caused partial damage to his residence, while the second […]