Return-to-office decisions in Canada

After a few quieter years, mandatory returns to the workplace are once again a hot topic for Canadian employers. Headlines increasingly feature organizations asking employees to be in the office four or five days a week, signaling a renewed emphasis on in-person connection, collaboration, and visibility.

For many leaders, this shift feels logical. Offices support spontaneous problem-solving, reinforce culture, and can accelerate learning—especially for early-career talent. But there is a less visible side to these decisions. Over time, flexible work arrangements became woven into how employees judged the overall value of their jobs. When that flexibility is reduced or removed, employees often experience it as a subtraction, even if business goals are sound.

Return-to-office strategies aren’t inherently flawed. The risk arises when organizations underestimate how much the value proposition has already changed and miss the opportunity to rebalance total rewards accordingly.

How flexibility quietly reshaped employee expectations

Remote and hybrid work were originally adopted out of necessity. In Canada, as elsewhere, they soon became normalized across many roles, industries, and regions. What began as a temporary adjustment evolved into a defining feature of work for a large portion of the labour market.

Why did it matter so much to employees? Because flexibility altered daily life in concrete, practical ways:

• Lower day-to-day expenses: Fewer GO Train or SkyTrain passes, reduced fuel costs, less parking downtown, and fewer dry-cleaning bills
• Time reclaimed: Long commutes in cities like Toronto, Vancouver, or Montréal replaced by usable personal time
• More say over work patterns: Greater discretion in structuring the day, particularly helpful in bilingual or cross-time-zone teams
• Better fit with family life: Easier coordination of childcare, elder care, or school schedules
• Wider access to roles: Opportunities beyond major urban centres, supporting regional talent and more inclusive participation

Employees didn’t necessarily label flexibility as a “benefit.” Instead, it became part of how they evaluated whether a role worked for them. In many cases, it influenced decisions just as much as salary or incentives. Once this experience became standard, expectations shifted, and those expectations don’t disappear overnight.

What employees feel they lose when in-office time increases

When a return-to-office requirement is announced, employees often focus less on the intent behind the policy and more on its personal impact. In Canada, those impacts tend to cluster into four broad areas, though they show up differently depending on location and life stage.

1. Increased personal spending

Returning to the office reintroduces costs that had faded into the background: transit fares, gas, tolls, parking, lunches purchased near the office, and work attire suitable for in-person meetings. For employees who moved farther from city centres during remote work periods, longer or more complex commutes can add up quickly. These expenses directly affect disposable income.

2. Longer workdays

Time spent travelling on the TTC, EXO, CTrain, or in traffic on the 401 isn’t compensated time. For many employees, commuting adds several hours each week, narrowing the margin between work and personal life. Under flexible arrangements, that time could be redirected to caregiving, rest, or focused work.

3. Strain on energy and health

More rigid schedules can heighten fatigue and stress, particularly during winter months or for employees balancing family responsibilities. Even highly committed employees can feel worn down when flexibility disappears and schedules become less forgiving.

4. Reduced sense of control

Perhaps the most sensitive change is psychological. Mandated presence can be interpreted as diminished trust, especially after years of demonstrated productivity in remote or hybrid environments. Even when compliance is high, motivation and discretionary effort may quietly decline.

Most employees will adapt to new requirements. But adapting doesn’t always mean feeling positive about the change. When people believe they are absorbing all the downside, frustration can build beneath the surface.

Why location changes feel bigger than leaders expect

Leaders often emphasize that roles, goals, and expectations remain the same, while only the setting has changed. From an employee’s point of view, however, the exchange has shifted. The amount of time, money, and flexibility required to do the job is different, and that difference affects perceptions of fairness.

This matters because engagement is tied to whether employees believe the overall arrangement still makes sense. Mercer’s 2026 Inside Employees’ Minds research shows that hybrid and full-time on-site workers are more satisfied. The same research highlights a clear preference gap: a small minority of workers would choose to be on-site full-time, while most favour either fully remote or hybrid arrangements. In reality, more than half work on-site full time.

Where preferences and policies diverge, dissatisfaction tends to grow. That tension doesn’t affect all employees equally. Individuals with in-demand skills, strong performance records, or opportunities across Canada’s competitive regional labour markets are often quickest to reassess whether the revised deal still works for them.

This is why some return-to-office initiatives appear stable at first, yet are followed by gradual declines in engagement or unexpected turnover. The challenge isn’t the policy—it’s treating it as cost-neutral when it isn’t.

Rethinking total rewards in a return-to-office world

Adjusting total rewards alongside a return-to-office decision isn’t about compensating for every inconvenience. It’s about deliberately deciding how the organization will recognize what’s changing and reinforce what employees receive in return.

There’s no single right answer, but Canadian employers typically have four broad avenues to consider.

Acknowledging new expenses

Some organizations choose to offset a portion of unavoidable costs through transit subsidies, parking support, or commuting allowances. In certain regions, revisiting location-based pay or offering a one-time transition payment can help employees manage the immediate impact of change. The signal matters as much as the dollar amount.

Restoring balance through time

When flexibility narrows, clarity and predictability become more important. Defined in-office days, flexibility within core hours, or options like compressed workweeks can give employees back some control. Additional personal days or seasonal flexibility can also help counter longer days.

Strengthening wellbeing and the on-site experience

Enhanced mental health coverage, family support programs, or services that simplify the workday can meaningfully improve how employees experience time in the office. Thoughtful workspace design—quiet areas, collaboration zones, accessible amenities—can also reduce friction and fatigue.

Making growth visible and tangible

For many employees, the strongest argument for being in the office is professional development. Clear access to mentoring, learning opportunities, leadership exposure, and advancement pathways can shift the conversation from loss to opportunity, if those benefits are real and clearly communicated.

Avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach

Uniform policies are often intended to promote fairness, but they don’t always feel fair in practice. Employees experience return-to-office requirements differently depending on their roles and circumstances.

Useful segmentation lenses include:

• Role requirements: Some positions truly depend on physical presence; others don’t
• Career stage: Early-career employees may prioritize learning and visibility, while mid-career employees often value flexibility more highly
• Personal context: Caregiving responsibilities, health considerations, and commute length all shape impact
• Market pressure: Scarce skills in competitive labour markets carry higher retention risk

A single policy can still exist, but surrounding supports don’t need to be identical. Differentiation, when grounded in data and aligned to business strategy, helps organizations invest where it matters most.

Clarity builds credibility

One of the most effective steps organizations can take isn’t structural—it’s communicative. Employees respond better when leaders are transparent about trade-offs and clear about intent.

That means openly recognizing what employees are giving up, explaining why the organization made its decision, and outlining how rewards and supports have been adjusted in response. When the rationale is grounded in evidence rather than assumption, trust is easier to maintain.

This is where market data, employee research, and tools such as salary surveys and the >Mercer Rewards Optimizer become critical. They enable leaders to quantify impacts, test alternatives, and explain choices with confidence.

Return to office is a choice—total rewards determine whether it lasts

Bringing people back to the office is a strategic decision. Whether that decision strengthens or strains the workforce depends on how well organizations address the real trade-offs involved.

Canadian employers navigating this moment most successfully aren’t trying to revert to pre-pandemic norms or promise unlimited flexibility. They’re recognizing that the employment equation has changed and responding thoughtfully, using data to guide both design and dialogue.

If your organization is considering a full-time return to the office, Mercer can help you reassess and optimize your total rewards approach. Contact us at surveys@mercer.com or call 866-605-1031.

About the Authors