http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/site/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/63091/index.do 
Ozawagosh et al. v. The Queen[1] (October 2, 2013) is a case involving a claim to tax exemption under section 87 of the Indian Act.[2] The appellants both lived on a reserve but were employed at an off-reserve health centre in Sudbury, Ontario which provided services to clients whether they lived on a reserve or not:
[4] Both appellants are status Indians. They reside on and are members of the Atikameksheng Anishnawbek First Nation and both were employed by NLS during the relevant taxation years. NLS is an employment services leasing business. The appellants’ services were leased to the Shkagamik‑Kwe Health Centre (SHC), where they each held different positions. On the basis of their Indian status, neither appellant paid income tax on her employment income received from NLS.
…
[7] These same objectives are found on the SHC website, where it is stated that SHC is dedicated to providing equal access to quality health care for all First Nations Metis and Inuit people in the city of Greater Sudbury, as well as individuals and families from partner First Nations, namely; Wahnapitae, Henvey Inlet and Magnetawan. Aboriginal people make up approximately 50% of SHC’s staff. As part of the traditional health program, visiting elders speak to clients in need of guidance and counsel them, and part of its daily activities, the SHC also engages in traditional practices such as the burning of sage called smudging, which cleanses negative energy. Although clients of SHC have to fill out a questionnaire when receiving services, they do not have to show identification to prove that they belong to a First Nation. They simply self‑declare. Residency is not a precondition to clients’ obtaining SHC’s services. It is fair to say that the services are available both to clients who reside on a reserve and to clients who do not.
The work performed by the appellants had little inherent connection with the reserve where they lived:
[30] The appellant Norma Petahtegoose worked at the SHC as administrative support to the medical staff. She was basically a receptionist. She explained that because of her background and life experience she was able to better understand SHC’s clients’ problems and steer them in a direction that might have been appropriate for them. However, the evidence also discloses that she has no training as a physician or nurse and is not a traditional healer. In addition, most of her work was performed on SHC’s premises and she was rarely required to work at any other place.
[31] The appellant Julie Ozawagosh, on the other hand, became the traditional coordinator for SHC in 2000 and remained in that position until her retirement. In that capacity, she arranged traditional healer and alternative health therapy services and coordinated a variety of cultural events, ceremonies and workshops. She also accompanied a traditional healer and volunteered to harvest traditional medicines on different reserves and off-reserve for about five hours a week from April to October, which she said represented 25% of her time, except in 2005. She acquired the knowledge to do this work through the elders and through conferences and spiritual gatherings.
Under the circumstances the court found that the connections between the appellants’ employment income and their reserve was simply too tenuous to justify an exemption from income tax:
Residency
[43] In the cases referred to above, residency was included as a potentially relevant factor for determining the location of employment income for the purposes of section 87, although it is not one that would generally be given much weight (see Folster, supra and Bell, supra). In Kelly v. Canada, supra, the Federal Court of Appeal, at paragraph 52, said that the wording of section 87 commands us to ask not whether the owner of the property is situated on a reserve, but whether the property is situated on a reserve.
[44] In our fact situation, both appellants lived on a reserve, but the evidence adduced does not indicate that the activities related to the appellants’ employment took place on-reserve, except for the harvesting of medicines by the appellant Julie Ozawagosh, and this activity was not limited to her own reserve. The appellants’ employment income was not generated by their on-reserve activities and that makes it difficult to locate their employment income on a reserve.
Conclusion
[45] Although there are factors that favour the appellants’ position, I am not convinced that there is a strong enough nexus between the appellants’ employment income and a reserve to enable me to conclude that its situs was on a reserve. Their employment income is therefore not exempt from taxation. The appeals are dismissed without costs.
This decision seems to be completely in line with the tenor of recent jurisprudence in this area.
[1] 2013 CTC 311.
[2] R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5.