Relocation Hub

Home › Constructive Dismissal › Relocation Hub

---

Overview

Relocation issues often arise in employment relationships. Whether an employee can be mandated to relocate—and what happens if they refuse—depends on many factors including contract issues, human rights considerations, and mitigation questions.

Contractual Framework

The starting point is always the employment contract. If the contract expressly provides for relocation, the clause will generally be enforceable, provided it is clear, specific, not exercised in bad faith, and there are no human rights issues as reviewed below.

Where relocation is not a stated contractual term, the issue will arise as to whether a court may imply a term into the relationship based on the context of the employer’s business.

Constructive Dismissal

If there is no contract term, direct or implied, a unilateral demand that an employee move to another city or province may constitute a fundamental change to the employment relationship, which the employee may treat as a constructive dismissal.

Keep in mind that the fundamental precept of employment law is working notice as an implied term. Absent a contract which says otherwise, and presuming no human rights issues as discussed below, the employer may simply give proper advance notice of the need to relocate and the employee will be obliged to do so.

This presumes no other material changes to compensation, responsibilities, and that the employer pays for the costs of the move.

Human Rights Considerations — Family and Marital Status

Employers must also consider obligations under human rights legislation, which protect employees from discrimination on the grounds of family and marital status. A relocation requirement that adversely affects an employee’s caregiving obligations (e.g., childcare, elder care, or spousal support responsibilities) may violate human rights protections.

It is not necessary to prove that the employer intended to discriminate—only that the policy or requirement (such as mandatory relocation) has a disproportionate adverse impact on employees with such protected characteristics.

To comply with human rights obligations, an employer must show that it has fulfilled its duty to accommodate such concerns to the point of undue hardship.

This requires flexibility, dialogue, and an individualized assessment. Examples of accommodation may include remote work, delayed transfer, or alternate placement.

Case Illustrations

Johnstone v. Canada (Border Services Agency), 2014 FCA 110
In Johnstone, the Federal Court of Appeal held that an employer’s inflexible scheduling policy that failed to accommodate childcare responsibilities amounted to discrimination based on family status. The Court emphasized that employees should not be forced to choose between work and family obligations. While not a relocation case per se, the decision remains a leading authority for analyzing the duty to accommodate family and marital status where workplace policies impose substantial personal burdens.

Seeley v. Canadian National Railway, 2014 FCA 111
In Seeley, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld a finding that CN discriminated against an employee who was required to relocate from Alberta to British Columbia. The employee, a single mother, could not reasonably move her children to another province on short notice. The Court confirmed that the employer’s failure to accommodate her family obligations breached the Canadian Human Rights Act. This case directly links relocation requirements with the duty to accommodate family and marital status, and it underscores that operational convenience cannot override human rights obligations.

---

Mitigation Obligations After Refusing Relocation

Even where a relocation demand amounts to a constructive dismissal, an employee’s duty to mitigate remains central to the damage assessment. The question becomes whether it was reasonable for the employee to refuse an offer involving relocation or re-employment in another location. Courts assess this objectively, considering personal, family, and economic circumstances, absent any human rights implications.

Mitigation & Reasonableness of Refusing to Relocate

Core principle: A dismissed employee must take reasonable steps to mitigate losses. In some circumstances, that can include accepting an offer that involves relocation. The analysis is contextual and asks whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would accept.

When acceptance may be required as mitigation

• Comparable position: Role, seniority, compensation, and responsibilities are materially comparable.
• Temporary or modest move: Short-term assignment or relocation within a reasonable commuting radius.
• Costs covered: Employer pays reasonable moving or temporary housing costs and provides transition support.
• Reasonable timing: Adequate lead time and start date; no undue disruption.
• No human rights barrier: No adverse effect on family and marital status requiring accommodation.

When refusal is generally reasonable

• Non-comparable work: Material drop in pay, status, or security; probationary or speculative roles.
• Significant disruption: Long-distance or permanent move with major family or life impacts.
• Insufficient support: Employer refuses to cover moving costs or provide realistic timelines.
• Human rights constraints: Disproportionate impact on caregiving or marital commitments without accommodation to undue hardship.

Burden of proof & evidence

• Onus: Employer typically bears the onus to show that the employee failed to mitigate and that a reasonable person would have accepted relocation.
• Documentation: Keep written offers, details of duties/pay/location, relocation supports, and timelines.

Practice notes

• Employees: Respond promptly in writing, identify family or marital concerns, and propose alternatives (remote work, delayed start, local placement).
• Employers: Offer clear written terms, cover reasonable moving expenses, and document accommodation efforts.

Cross-references: See Constructive Dismissal, Contracts, Human Rights, and Mitigation.

---

Integration with Related Topics

Relocation intersects with several key areas of employment law:

• Contract Law: Drafting and interpreting relocation clauses.
• Constructive Dismissal: When a relocation demand becomes a repudiation.
• Human Rights: Family and marital status discrimination and accommodation.
• Mitigation: Assessing reasonableness of refusal to move.

These topics are expanded and linked within the Relocation Hub—a central reference point for cases and commentary across Harris on Canadian Employment Law 2025.

---

Explore Related Topics

Relocation Requirements in Employment – Frequently Asked Questions

Can an employer require an employee to relocate?
Yes, but only if the employment contract clearly provides for relocation or if such a term can reasonably be implied
based on the nature of the position. Otherwise, a forced relocation may constitute constructive dismissal,
triggering notice, severance, or damages.

---

What if relocation causes hardship due to family or marital status?
Employers must accommodate protected grounds such as family status and marital status to the point of undue hardship.
A mandatory move that creates disproportionate impact on caregiving or spousal responsibilities may be
discriminatory under human rights law, even if the contract mentions relocation.

---

Does an employee have to relocate to mitigate damages?
Sometimes. If the new role is comparable, relocation costs are covered, and no human rights or medical barriers exist,
refusing the relocation could eliminate the claim. Where relocation would impose serious disruption, discrimination, or undue hardship,
refusal is generally considered reasonable.

---

Who pays the cost of relocation?
Unless otherwise stated, employers should cover reasonable moving expenses, temporary housing, and travel costs related
to the transfer, particularly when the relocation is employer-initiated or required for continued employment.

Get Legal Advice

This is a complicated issue. Get legal advice before you act. If you need help securing a lawyer, contact the author and you will receive a recommedation.

 

---

About the Author

David Harris is a former employment litigation lawyer and author of Harris on Canadian Employment Law. His work has been cited in numerous Canadian court decisions, including those addressing wrongful and constructive dismissal, damages, and human rights obligations in the workplace. Visit empl-law.com for current commentary and resources for HR professionals and legal practitioners.