Ontario’s Return to Office Mandate: What does it Mean?

Ontario’s government recently announced that starting October 2025, all provincial government employees will be required to be in the office four days per week, ramping up to five days a week by early January 2026. Previously, these workers had only been required to work in-office three days a week. The government’s mandate follows similar trends in the private sector and even at the municipal level. For example, Brampton’s mayor quickly announced a matching full-time return for city staff, starting in January 2026.

A petition to reconsider the mandate has already been launched by workers.

So the question is: can an employer require a full-time return without negotiation? And what recourse do workers have if the policy impacts personal or contractual arrangements?

In Ontario, an employer’s ability to require in-office work heavily depends on two factors:

• The human rights contracts
• Human rights considerations

The employment contract:

Ontario employers can normally set workplace policies, including location requirements, so long as they comply with the Employment Standards Act and the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code). But the employment contract is also important. If a return to office mandate significantly alters employment terms, an employee could claim constructive dismissal.

What does that mean? Well, if an employee legitimately believes remote work was an established term or benefit of their job (for example, by longstanding practice or by formal agreement), then suddenly retracting it could be a fundamental change. In that scenario, courts may view the unilateral change as a constructive dismissal. Courts will look at factors like:

• Was remote work an established condition of the job? (i.e., Did the employer, by words or conduct, make it an implied term?)
• Does the new mandate fundamentally change the employee’s role, hours or responsibilities?
• Was the employee given reasonable notice of the change?

For example, in a recent Ontario decision an employee had been working remotely from Europe for over a year when her employer suddenly required she return to Canada full-time.[1] The Superior Court of Justice found that remote work had become a key part of her job, and since the employer didn’t provide proper notice, or previously warn her it could change their arrangement, the demand to return was a violation of the contract. The employee was held to be constructively dismissed.

Human rights considerations:

Another important consideration is whether individual employees may require accommodation due to disability, family status, or some other protected ground. In the petition launched to reconsider the Ontario government mandate, childcare costs and accessibility were listed as the first concerns.

Under the Code, employers are required to accommodate disability related concerns and certain childcare or eldercare needs, unless doing so would cause undue hardship. An employee with childcare responsibilities responsibilities that prevent them from commuting to the office might, if certain conditions are met, have a valid human rights claim if not accommodated. Similarly, an employee who has accessibility related concerns may have medical reasons that require a hybrid or fully remote work arrangement.

These considerations should be discussed on an individual basis between the employer and the employee. If an employee is able to show a real accommodation need then the employer must accommodate it up to undue hardship.

Notably, an employer’s duty to accommodate does not require them to offer a perfect solution. In a recent Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision, a single parent residential care worker refused late or weekend shifts to look after her six-year-old child.[2] When the employer offered several alternative schedules (for example, shifting her to days-only or sharing some weekend hours), the employee rejected them as imperfect solutions. The HRTO held that the employer had satisfied its duty to accommodate as it had made genuine efforts to accommodate within its operational constraints, and the employee had not cooperated. Employees are not entitled to perfect or preferred accommodation; only accommodation that is reasonable in the circumstances. And both sides have an obligation to cooperate.

What does this mean for you?

For an employee, refusing to return to the office without any kind of justification might be considered insubordination and could even lead to discipline. But employers should also treat this type of change as a significant contractual shift, and handle it like any other major policy change: with clear communication, reasonable notice, and a compassionate accommodation process.

---

[1] Byrd v. Welcome Home Children’s Residence Inc.

[2] Aguele v. Family Options Inc., 2024 HRTO 991