Hill v. The King, 2024 TCC 92 (Informal Procedure) -- summary under Section 87

The taxpayer, a status Indian, who lived on a reserve and worked at a hospital a 10 minute drive away (on land just outside the reserve and which she alleged was on lands that should have been included in the reserve lands, although she acknowledged to not be part of the reserve) was not exempted on her employment income. Graham J noted that, unlike Folster, there was no real relationship between her work and life on the reserve (e.g., most patients were not on the reserve). The location of the hospital on disputed lands did not have much significance given the absence of such a relationship.