In administrative law, fettered discretion refers to the illegal practice of a government body or official refusing to consider exceptions or individual circumstances, simply defaulting to rigid rules, policies, or blanket denials. The law requires decision-makers to use judgment—to weigh unique factors and to remain open to different outcomes when the situation warrants it. If discretion is “fettered,” it means that someone has tied their own hands, refusing to think, evaluate, or decide fairly. The danger of this cannot be overstated: imagine a government agency denying life-saving medication because “the form was filed on a Monday,” or a veteran being refused benefits because “the rules don’t allow for reconsideration.” These are not exaggerations; when discretion is eliminated, tyranny becomes procedural.

In Canada, SGI explicitly demonstrated this mindset during the Acton v. Rural Municipality of Britannia No. 502 case. The case itself involved the wrongful seizure and sale of land belonging to Gordon Acton, after he failed to pay property taxes. What makes this case especially disturbing is that Acton had become a C6 spastic quadriplegic—paralyzed from the neck down—due to a catastrophic rollover accident, and SGI—the very institution intervening in his case—had previously failed to compensate him adequately under its no-fault insurance scheme. Despite his profound disability, SGI’s standard benefits left him unable to afford the round-the-clock care, home modifications, or economic support necessary to maintain even a fraction of his former livelihood. This chain of systemic neglect pushed him into financial hardship, ultimately leading to the tax arrears in question.

The municipality then rigidly applied its tax enforcement procedures and sold Acton’s property without considering the specific facts of his situation, including his disability, ongoing disputes, and payment attempts. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled in Acton’s favour, finding that the RM had unlawfully fettered its discretion by treating policy as inflexible law and failed in its duty of procedural fairness. The court emphasized that discretion must be exercised on a case-by-case basis, and rigid adherence to internal policy is not a legal justification for unjust actions. As a result of this ruling, Acton’s land was returned to him, and the Court sent a strong signal that municipalities—and by extension, public agencies—cannot hide behind procedure to avoid fair decision-making. Crucially, the Court also ruled that Acton could pursue further compensation through a tort claim under section 103 of the Automobile Accident Insurance Act, seeking to recover the full extent of his economic losses that SGI had failed to cover. This opened the door to damages well beyond the limited support provided under SGI’s no-fault regime, holding the insurer indirectly accountable for its role in the devastation of his life.

SGI, despite not being a party to the original dispute, applied to intervene at the Supreme Court of Canada, recognizing that the principles at stake—particularly the prohibition on fettered discretion—posed a direct threat to its internal policies. In its submission, SGI warned that if administrators could not rely strictly on policy, and had to assess individual cases, then “the floodgates would open.” This was not simply a legal argument—it was a scathing confession of institutional intent: a declaration that SGI’s entire system was built on avoiding discretionary decision-making. The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, effectively letting the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s ruling stand, and doing so after hearing SGI’s stunning admission. The implication was unmistakable—the highest court in Canada refused to give cover to SGI’s model of bureaucratic tyranny.

But this is not just about insurance policy—fettering discretion is the gateway to tyranny. When officials refuse to apply judgment and humanity, they stop being accountable to the people they serve. It creates a system where no one can be held responsible, because “the rules say so” becomes the only answer. Rules become weapons, and authority becomes unchallengeable. In this environment, injustices are not accidents—they are built-in. The psychological impact is devastating: people stop asking for help, lose trust in institutions, and become alienated from the very systems that claim to protect them.

We see modern evidence of this in the actions of former U.S. President Donald Trump, whose administration implemented rigid, zero-tolerance immigration policies that removed discretion from border officials. This led directly to family separations, child detentions, and humanitarian violations, all justified by “the law.” The officials enforcing these policies claimed they were just “doing their jobs,” even when those jobs caused irreversible trauma. This is the real-world outcome of fettered discretion: atrocities that are no one’s fault because they follow procedure.

Canadian law is built to resist this slide. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that public officials must think, must weigh, must judge. The Supreme Court has ruled that fairness is not optional—it is a constitutional imperative. When an institution like SGI tries to argue that discretion is dangerous and inconvenient, they reveal that they do not trust their own staff, their own process, or the public. Worse, they show a will to dehumanize and to treat every case as a threat to efficiency rather than an opportunity for justice.

This is how tyranny enters—not through tanks and uniforms, but through spreadsheets, checklists, and automated denials. It is subtle, bloodless, and bureaucratic. And that is exactly why it must be stopped.

---

Here is a breakdown of what steps have been taken and information we have so far.

1. Fettered Discretion: A Culture of Denial from the Top Down

SGI staff routinely refuse to consider individual circumstances, citing rigid adherence to internal rules and policy manuals. This refusal to exercise discretion is not just unethical—it violates fundamental principles of Canadian administrative law.

Key Case Law:

• Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121 — Public officials cannot abdicate discretion to policy.
• Baker v. Canada, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 — Decisions must reflect context and compassion.

SGI’s institutional culture, driven from executive leadership, encourages denial of accommodations and promotes rigid, impersonal application of policy—even in cases involving disability, poverty, or injustice.

2. Auto Fund Conflict: CTSS Enforcement Paid by Premiums

The Auto Fund, built from mandatory driver premiums, is intended for road safety improvements and insurance claims. However, SGI has quietly diverted millions to fund Criminal and Traffic Safety Services (CTSS), which are policing units.

Conflict of Interest:

• CTSS enforcement actions generate revenue through fines.
• SGI benefits from increased ticketing, while claiming “safety” outcomes.
• This represents a self-reinforcing financial conflict that distorts the purpose of a public insurer.

This also violates the public trust: insurance premiums should never fund enforcement units incentivized to penalize the very people who pay into the system.

3. Fair Practice Office: An Illusion of Justice

FOIP requests have revealed that SGI’s Fair Practice Office, presented as an independent and impartial resource for customer dispute resolution, is in fact run by SGI management.

Key Concerns:

• The office is not structurally independent.
• Recommendations from staff to contact the Fair Practice Office may divert complainants away from the Office of the Provincial Ombudsman, which is truly independent.
• Clients may inadvertently disclose legally sensitive information under the false belief of neutrality, potentially undermining any future legal claims or judicial reviews.
• SGI may be collecting legal admissions under the guise of complaint resolution—raising serious concerns of bad faith conduct and obstruction of justice.

This is not merely administrative misconduct; it borders on fraud and constitutes a breach of public fiduciary duty.

4. Medical Cannabis, Diabetics, and Enforcement Bias

SGI’s impaired driving enforcement system disproportionately impacts people with medical conditions—especially medical cannabis users and diabetics—and these biases often intersect with Indigenous identity due to higher medical vulnerability.

Medical Cannabis Users:

• SGI assumes THC presence = impairment.
• Science shows THC can remain in the system for weeks.
• This criminalizes legal medical users and violates Section 15 of the Charter (equality rights).

Diabetics & False Alcohol Positives:

• Diabetics experiencing ketoacidosis can emit acetone, which mimics ethanol in certain breathalyzers.
• Indigenous people in Canada have 2–5x higher diabetes rates, meaning enforcement has a disproportionate racial impact.

SGI and associated police services have no effective protocols to prevent this discriminatory application of the law.

5. Check Stops & Historical Control of Indigenous Peoples

Check stops near Indigenous reserves are frequently justified under the “safety” umbrella, yet historically, similar enforcement mechanisms were used to contain Indigenous populations under colonial policies.

Legal and Historical Context:

• The Pass System (late 19th to mid-20th century) restricted Indigenous mobility and was enforced via roadblocks and permit checks.
• R. v. Padlovich (1987 MBQB) highlighted potential racial profiling in vehicle stops.
• Today’s use of roadside enforcement near reserves appears to replicate patterns of containment and control, violating reconciliation principles.

These tactics resurrect colonial tools under the appearance of legality, ignoring historical trauma and violating the spirit of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

6. SGI’s Write-Off Policy: Mobility Stripped from the Poor

SGI frequently writes off older vehicles over cosmetic damages, using inflated repair estimates that ignore used parts or local repair options.

Systemic Injustice:

• Poor people often rely on older vehicles for work, family, and medical access.
• SGI’s payouts are below replacement value, and clients cannot afford newer vehicles.
• Cosmetic damages that don’t impair safety still result in write-offs.
• Individuals are forced into debt or left without transportation.

For the working poor, this is not just inconvenient—it’s immobilizing. SGI’s write-off policies become a tool of economic displacement and class-based exclusion.

7. Summary of Letters Addressing SGI Misconduct

• To SGI Governance Committee – On the misuse of Auto Fund for CTSS.
• To SGI Ombudsman & Executive – Challenging biased oversight practices.
• To the Saskatchewan Ombudsman Office – Calling for external review of Fair Practice Office.
• To Union Leadership – Warning of legal risk in pressuring workers to deny discretion.
• To Human Rights Commission – Regarding discrimination, disability, and medical bias.
• To Minister Responsible for SGI – Full dossier of systemic failures.
• To Legal Analysts and Academics – On systemic patterns of injustice.

Conclusion: SGI Must Be Held Accountable

SGI is no longer acting as a public service provider. It operates as an insurance enforcement cartel, where discretion is denied, complaint pathways are corrupted, and the poor are systematically excluded from mobility and justice.

Its Fair Practice Office is a shell of accountability, and its funding of enforcement bodies through public premiums is an abuse of public trust. Targeted enforcement disproportionately affects Indigenous communities and the medically vulnerable.

Unless the legislature intervenes—through a full independent inquiry, enforcement reforms, and structural overhaul—SGI risks not only class-action litigation, but irreparable loss of legitimacy in the eyes of Saskatchewan residents.