You have built a life where you are. Your children are in school. Your spouse has a job. Your community is here. Then your employer calls and tells you that you are being transferred to another city, or another province, and you are expected to comply.
Can they do that?
The answer, under Alberta employment law, is: it depends. Whether a forced geographic transfer is legal, and whether refusing one could cost you your severance pay, turns on a careful analysis of your employment contract, your personal circumstances, the nature of your employer, and how the transfer was handled. This post breaks down what employees need to know.
A forced transfer is assessed against the legal test for constructive dismissal, starting with what your contract allows.
Speak to a Calgary Employment Lawyer and book a case evaluation.
Table of Contents
What Is Constructive Dismissal?
Before examining geographic transfers specifically, it helps to understand the legal framework they sit within.
Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer makes a unilateral change to a fundamental term of your employment that is significant enough to amount to a breach of your employment contract. You have not been formally fired. But the law treats you as having been effectively dismissed. That entitles you to pursue compensation for wrongful dismissal.
Constructive dismissal can arise in two ways:
1. Breach of an express or implied term. The employer changes something specific (your compensation, your duties, your location) in a way that substantially alters the terms you agreed to.
2. Cumulative repudiation of the contract. The employer’s conduct, taken as a whole, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that they no longer intend to be bound by the employment relationship.
A geographic transfer can trigger constructive dismissal under either branch, depending on the facts.
Learn more about constructive dismissal here.
Is Your Employer Allowed to Transfer You?
The starting question in any geographic transfer case is whether the employer has the legal right to relocate you in the first place. The answer comes from examining your employment contract, both its written terms and the terms the law implies from your circumstances.
Express Terms
The clearest situation is when your employment contract contains an explicit mobility clause, a provision stating that you may be required to work at different locations at the employer’s direction. If such a clause exists and was properly communicated to you at the time of hiring, your employer generally has the right to transfer you, provided the transfer is reasonable and made in good faith.
Employers who anticipate that their operational needs may shift geographically are well advised to include a mobility clause from the outset. Without one, the right to transfer is much harder to establish.
Implied Terms
Where there is no express mobility clause, courts will examine whether a right to transfer can be implied from the circumstances. Alberta courts and courts across Canada consider a range of factors, including:
The intentions of the parties at hiring. If the employer, at the time you were hired, told other employees they might be required to work at other locations but said nothing to you, or worse, assured you of stable local employment, it is difficult for them to later claim an implied right to relocate you.
Your transfer history. An employee who has accepted geographic transfers in the past may find a court more willing to imply that transfers are a feature of the employment relationship. Where an employee has worked at one location for an extended period, courts are less likely to find an implied mobility term.
The size and nature of the employer. Large national or international companies with multiple branches are more likely to have geographic mobility implied as a feature of senior employment relationships. As one court observed, it is difficult to conceive of how a large national corporation could operate effectively without some right to transfer employees between locations, at least at the executive level. That logic has far less force for a company with a single office.
Industry custom. Some professions, like specialized engineering, carry an expectation that work will follow projects across different locations. Administrative and support roles generally carry no such expectation.
The employee’s role. Courts are more willing to imply a mobility term for senior executives than for lower-level employees. The higher the seniority and the more the role involves national responsibilities, the more likely a transfer right will be found.
When a Transfer Becomes a Constructive Dismissal
Even where an employer has a right to transfer, that right is not unlimited. A transfer can still constitute constructive dismissal if it is unreasonable, made in bad faith, or imposed without adequate consideration for the employee’s circumstances.
Canadian courts, including decisions from Alberta, have identified the following as key factors in determining whether a required relocation crosses the line:
1. Is the position equivalent?
The employee must generally be offered the same or a comparable position at the new location, with similar duties, similar status, and similar compensation. If the transfer involves a demotion, a reduction in pay, or a diminished role, that significantly strengthens a constructive dismissal argument.
Learn more in Knowledge Centre: When a shift in responsibilities becomes constructive dismissal.
2. Are moving expenses being covered?
Courts have consistently held that an employer offering to pay reasonable relocation costs is an important factor in favour of the transfer being lawful. An employer that demands you uproot your family at your own expense is on much weaker legal ground.
3. Were the terms at the new location clearly communicated?
Employees cannot be expected to commit to a transfer without knowing what they are committing to. Where an employer fails to make firm, clear commitments about salary, duties, and conditions at the new location, courts have found that placing an employee in that position of uncertainty is itself intolerable. One court found constructive dismissal precisely because an employee was being asked to sell his home, move to a new city, and buy a new property without any firm commitment about what his salary there would be.
4. How far is the transfer?
Distance matters. Courts are significantly more likely to find constructive dismissal where the transfer requires an employee to move across the country (say, from Toronto to Vancouver, or from Vancouver to San Francisco) than where a transfer is to a nearby town or city.
Cases involving transfers of an hour or two are decidedly mixed. Alberta courts have found that a two-hour transfer did not constitute constructive dismissal in some circumstances. But where a transfer imposed additional daily commuting costs of approximately $34,000 per year, a court found the employee was entitled to refuse.
5. Was the employee given adequate time to decide?
Requiring an employee to decide on a cross-city or cross-province move within days is not acceptable. Courts have found that an employee given only four days’ notice to transfer was justified in refusing, particularly where the short notice was found to reflect a disciplinary motive. A reasonable period, generally ranging from a week to a month or more depending on the circumstances, should be provided.
6. Was the transfer made in good faith?
This is a crucial question. A transfer imposed as a form of discipline, or to push an employee out rather than to meet a genuine business need, will not be protected. Where an employer has acted in bad faith, using the transfer as a pretext, courts will find constructive dismissal.
7. What is the employee’s personal situation?
Courts examine the employee’s individual circumstances, including:
- Whether the employee’s spouse or partner would have to leave employment to make the move
- Whether the employee has children in school or with particular needs tied to their current location
- Whether the employee is approaching retirement age and has long-standing ties to the community
- Whether housing costs or other financial factors make the move economically untenable
- Whether the move would sever joint custody or access arrangements with children
One court found that a union business representative was entitled to refuse a transfer to Calgary because housing prices there made the move economically infeasible. Another court found that a dismissed long-service employee near retirement age was not required to move to Ohio to join another division of his former employer. The move was simply unreasonable given his age and decades of association with his home community.
What Happens If You Refuse a Transfer?
Your legal position when you refuse a transfer depends on whether the employer had the right to require it.
If the employer did not have the right to transfer you, and you refuse and resign, you may be entitled to pursue a claim for constructive dismissal and wrongful dismissal damages. You have not voluntarily resigned. You have been effectively dismissed.
If the employer did have the right to transfer you, and the transfer was reasonable, your refusal may be treated as abandonment of employment. In that case, you could lose your entitlement to severance package.
If you have already been dismissed, the transfer question may re-emerge in the context of your duty to mitigate your damages. Even after wrongful dismissal, you are expected to take reasonable steps to find comparable work, including in some cases accepting a position elsewhere with the same employer. However, where the offered position would require you to relocate in circumstances that are genuinely unreasonable given your personal situation, courts have found that refusing does not violate the duty to mitigate.
Learn more about wrongful dismissal here.
The Broader Debate: Who Carries the Risk?
It is worth noting that the law in this area is not entirely settled, and different courts across Canada have reached divergent conclusions. Some Ontario decisions have been willing to imply broad mobility obligations on employees, particularly in large corporations, even in the absence of direct evidence that the employee agreed to such a term. British Columbia courts have generally been more protective of employees, holding that there is no presumption of mobility and that any right to require a transfer must be demonstrated by the employer.
Alberta sits somewhere between these poles. The most carefully reasoned Alberta decisions look to a multi-factor test: the employer’s size, its area of operations, the employee’s seniority, the history of transfers in the organization, whether the employee knew at the time of hiring that transfers were possible, and whether the specific transfer in question imposes undue burden or hardship on the employee.
The underlying policy question is a real one. On the one hand, large employers with offices across the country have a legitimate interest in deploying their people where the work is. On the other hand, location is often a foundational term of the employment relationship for the employee, one they relied on when they bought a home, built community ties, and made family decisions. Permitting employers to override that expectation without consequence, and at the employee’s financial risk, is a significant imposition. Employers are far better positioned to forecast their operational needs and to plan accordingly than employees are to absorb a sudden forced relocation.
For Alberta employees navigating this question, the answer will always be fact-specific. Getting the analysis wrong can be costly in either direction.
Practical Takeaways for Employees
If your employer is pressuring you to accept a geographic transfer, here is what to keep in mind:
Do not simply resign without legal advice. Whether your resignation would be treated as constructive dismissal or voluntary depends on facts that need to be analyzed carefully. Resigning without that analysis could forfeit your entitlement to severance.
Review your employment contract. Look for any mobility or work location clause. If one exists, understand its scope. If your contract says nothing about location, that is significant.
Document everything. Keep records of how and when the transfer was communicated to you, what was offered, what the terms at the new location are, and any response you provide. If the employer is pressuring you or acting in bad faith, document that as well.
Consider your personal circumstances carefully. Your family situation, your spouse’s employment, your children’s schooling, housing costs, commuting burden, and proximity to aging parents are all potentially relevant to whether the transfer imposes undue hardship.
Do not assume you have to accept. Even if your employer tells you the transfer is mandatory, that assertion may not be legally accurate. The question of whether the employer has the right to require the transfer, and whether you would be justified in refusing, is a legal question, not just an HR policy question.
Get legal advice before responding. The window between when a transfer is announced and when you are expected to respond is often when the most important decisions are made. Speaking to Calgary employment lawyers during that window can make a significant difference to the outcome.
Estimate your severance entitlement
Relevant Legislation
Geographic transfer and constructive dismissal claims in Alberta arise primarily under the common law of employment contracts. The Employment Standards Code also sets out important protections that apply once notice of termination has been given.
Section 61 of the Code provides that once either party gives termination notice, the employer cannot reduce the employee’s wages, wage rate, or any other term or condition of employment before the termination date. This protection applies whether or not the employee is required to perform work during that period.
In the context of a geographic transfer, this provision is relevant where termination notice has already been issued. An employer cannot use the notice period as an opportunity to alter the terms of employment, and an employee who is offered alternative work in a new location during that period retains the right to assess whether that work is truly reasonable.
Learn more: Your rights during working notice
Speak with an Employment Lawyer
Geographic transfer cases require careful, individualized legal analysis. Whether you are an employee trying to decide how to respond to a transfer demand, or someone who has already been dismissed after refusing to relocate, the stakes are real and the law is nuanced.
Cashion Legal is an employment law firm based in Calgary serving employees and employers throughout Alberta. We advise on constructive dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and a full range of employment law matters.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Can my employer legally force me to relocate to another city or province?
Not necessarily. Whether your employer can require you to relocate depends on whether your employment contract contains an express mobility clause, or whether a right to transfer can be implied from the circumstances of your employment. Without either, your employer generally cannot force a geographic transfer without risking a constructive dismissal claim.
2. What is constructive dismissal?
Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer unilaterally changes a fundamental term of your employment in a way that amounts to a breach of your contract. You have not been formally fired, but the law treats you as having been effectively dismissed, entitling you to pursue wrongful dismissal compensation.
3. If I refuse a transfer, will I lose my severance?
It depends. If your employer had a legitimate right to transfer you and the transfer was reasonable, refusing may be treated as abandonment of employment and you could lose severance entitlement. If the employer had no right to require the transfer, refusing and resigning may support a constructive dismissal claim. Getting legal advice before responding is important.
4. What factors do courts consider when deciding if a forced transfer is constructive dismissal?
Courts look at a range of factors, including whether the position at the new location is equivalent in status and pay, whether moving expenses are covered, how far the transfer is, how much notice was given, whether the employer acted in good faith, and whether the transfer imposes undue hardship on the employee given their personal circumstances.
5. Does it matter how far away the new location is?
Yes. Courts are more likely to find constructive dismissal where the transfer requires a cross-country move. Transfers of an hour or two produce mixed results depending on the specific facts. Where a transfer significantly increases commuting costs or time, courts have found employees entitled to refuse.
6. Can my personal situation affect whether I have to accept a transfer?
Yes. Courts consider your personal circumstances, including whether your spouse would have to leave their job, whether your children would be uprooted from school, whether housing costs at the new location are economically untenable, whether you are near retirement age with long-standing community ties, and whether the move would affect custody or access arrangements with your children.
7. What if my employer says the transfer is mandatory?
An employer’s assertion that a transfer is mandatory is not the same as it being legally enforceable. Whether the employer has the right to require the transfer is a legal question that depends on your specific contract and circumstances. You should speak with an employment lawyer before accepting or refusing.
8. Do I have to accept a job offer in a new location after being wrongfully dismissed?
After wrongful dismissal, you are expected to take reasonable steps to mitigate your damages, which can include considering comparable job offers. However, where accepting a position would require relocation that is unreasonable given your personal situation, courts have found that refusing does not violate your duty to mitigate.