I have no ties with any political parties or any lawyers.  This website is only for informational purposes about Saskatchewan Government Insurance.
​ 
CHANGE
This website is to promote positive change with the No-Fault law in Saskatchewan
(I  am using my situation as an example of the problems with SGI, the No-Fault system and the legal system surrounding the No-Fault system in Saskatchewan.)

Just like the first page, this is a pretty detailed & boring page to read so you may just want to read until you see "*****" to get the general idea of the page. After that spot on the page, it is a more of a detailed explanation. 
But the rest of the pages are easier to read, except the page "What Happened".

I  am just using my situation as an example of the No-Fault System's problems -- I didn't get a benefit called Living Assistance from SGI for over 13 years or get Speech Therapy until the second year after my claim started.  I made poor decisions due to my Brain Injury with the current appeal process that is structure to grant SGI favourable results.  This poor appeal resolution process is causing me a lot of therapeutic and financial challenges. Therefore, I want the No-Fault insurance system thoroughly reassessed to ensure SGI is giving out benefits in a timely manner and making the disagreement process fairer to claimants especially those with cognitive disabilities.
Currently, the system heavily favors SGI.


Even though the No-Fault system was reassessed in 2015, some of the changes were not that much different. If I had to process a claim with Saskatchewan's No-Fault insurance and go through the disagreement process, the outcome would be the same.  I would not get Living Assistance for over 13 years or Speech Therapy until year 2, not get my living assistance re-instated to what my Occupational Therapist decided I needed or get the help I needed after my disagreement.  As well, I would still have the current problems because the disagreement process is extremely flawed.

As is stands, the system heavily favors SGI.  The No-Fault system currently works under the 'honor' system without any balances or checks by the Government of Saskatchewan. In a sense, Saskatchewan currently has a lottery system and not an insurance system because there are no checks on SGI to ensure claimants are getting all the benefits you are entitled to.  If the Government of Saskatchewan does not realize these larger issues with the auto insurance system in Saskatchewan, they are either very naïve, purposely disregarding the suggestions made by professionals (because there have been many suggestions made by professionals regarding this topic) or they do not understand the full scope of the problem.

I would like a few legislative changes made to the No-Fault system so the system could be fairer to all parties involved.  Some of these suggestions apply to the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission and disagreement process, other suggestions apply to No-Fault System as a whole. These changes NEED to be legislated as SGI finds loopholes to work around the system.

(Sorry if my thoughts are repetitive; I do not have time to edit again. I have a Brain Injury but I am somewhat intelligent and you will recognize that in some of my thoughts below.)

You may not have to make some of the changes below if you changed the following issues because the suggestions would be moot anyway. But a professional would know best. 

• 1: The cap for the claimant's costs was eliminated if they won a disagreement against SGI at the AIAC and the Queen's Bench Court.
• 2: A formal meeting before hand to choose which court to proceed to and to see if a resolution could be made prior to going to court (the claimants must be assisted by lawyers at this point). Maybe get rid of mediation as this could replace it. 
• 3: The application was changed to explain more about the different courts, telling you which laws are not applicable at the AIAC, that SGI will be represented by a lawyer employed by SGI specializing in these cases, as well as telling the claimant to see a lawyer, especially if they have a brain injury. (due to poor problem-solving skills)
• 4: Lawyers to become involved again at the disagreement level to allow for a broader base of the economy and support jobs in Saskatchewan as well as to make the playing field even in court against SGI.
• 5: Consequences or repercussions to adjusters for not giving out benefits in a timely matter (instead of rewarding them for poor actions) 
• 6: A check on the No-Fault system to ensure claimants were being told all the benefits and getting their basic benefits and understanding they can appeal decisions.
• 7: The ability to transfer an appeal from the AIAC to the Queen's Bench Court.  As well as,
• 8: A re-assessment of the No-Fault system every 4 years

​
(Below these asterisks, it just documents  specific law changes and reasoning which is very boring to read; you may want to move onto the rest of the pages for a more fluent read or just read the bold headings)

***************************************
​
You may not agree with some of these changes but at least I am trying to come up with some ideas. Some changes I suggest are as follows:

1. Similar to how there is legislation in Saskatchewan for a provincial election every four years, I would also like it legislated to have the No-Fault system reassessed every 4 years on a continual basis. 

• Since the No-Fault system had been in Saskatchewan for over 23 years, it has only been re-assessed twice.
• It was recently re-assessed in 2015, but there were only one or two changes made to improve the disagreement process.  Nothing was done to ensure the claimants were getting his or her benefits from SGI because there have been claimants in the past that have NOT gotten all their benefits.
• This will allow the No-Fault system to become a more flexible entity and keep up with change.  This does not mean it has to be expensive.  The government makes everything complicated and more expensive. (Big eye-roll) Throw a bunch of people in a room, come up with some ideas, have a discussion, make a decision and legislated it.  How hard can this be? (Heck, monkeys can almost do this)
• Eventually, you may be able to spread out the assessments to a longer time period after the system is fairer to all parties.
• Change is a process NOT an event!!
• I would like this legislated so that this is not haphazardly forgotten.
• I would like to be on the committee the next time they meet to ensure the appropriate law changes are made.  I have a disability; I'm not stupid.  Although, one would have to question my intelligence for not getting a benefit for 13 years.

2. A formal meeting between SGI and the claimant before court proceedings in an appeal.

• This would be to see if both parties can come to an agreement and/or to decide which court is more appropriate for their needs of their case: the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission (AIAC) or the Queen's Bench.   (I would like the claimants to be represented by a lawyer at this stage to help with their decision-making process, especially claimants with cognitive injuries. I have poor decision-making and problem solving skills due to my brain injury -- I may have still gone to the AIAC because it took me a long time to understand legal jurisdiction and I thought Living Assistance was a brand-new benefit SGI recently introduced that year or the year before.  They do not explain jurisdiction until AFTER you are at the AIAC and by that time it is too late; that is why lawyer's need to come back into the system) 
• When an appeal would be executed, it would not be determined which court the appeal would go to until this meeting (unless there are significant changes to the appeal process). However, this formal meeting may create some delays.  IDK.  But SGI already creates delays in the current process -- it took them 3 months to get all my documents into the AIAC and they even received a letter from the AIAC to tell them to hurry up with the documents.
• Some appeals would go to the AIAC while others would go to the Queens Bench Court.  This would prevent wasting the taxpayer’s money by going to the wrong court due to lack of jurisdiction.
• This meeting would be the time to see if SGI wants to come to an agreement or not or if a negotiation can be made. The 3 times I went to the AIAC, SGI wanted to settle with me WHILE IN FRONT of the commission members because they realized they were in the wrong.   Why couldn't SGI have figured out they were going to settle before they came to court? 
• If the commission members think the disagreement could have been settled at the formal meeting instead of going forward to court, I would like SGI to receive a fine to hopefully sanction SGI going to court for no reason.  Or even if they take too long to hand in the appeal documents.  Why is the public only given fines to sanction behavior?!? This money could go to help pay for the costs of running the AIAC and possibly random checks on the claimants to ensure they are getting their benefits.  But I do not know-- that just a random idea. These fines which should be at least $10,000 or more as to try to sanction negative behavior. A $100 fine would be peanuts to SGI. (Based on the ratio of $136 for a traffic fine and the mean annual wage for a person of $50,000, and SGI making a profit of $8 million, the fine would be at least $20,000 for SGI. If SGI made more the fine could be higher. In theory, the fine could be based on SGI's previous years' income.) 
• A formal meeting would hopefully help to reduce the amount of appeals at the AIAC and reduce the waste of taxpayer’s money. I think SGI’s lawyers often go to court because it is not an extra cost to SGI.  These SGI lawyers are on salary so if they are not going to the AIAC, they are just doing something else for the company.  But I think this is very wasteful. These fines must be legislated.  I think SGI is just trying to intimidate the claimant sometimes by pushing the procedure all the way to court, hoping the claimant will withdraw the appeal, which does happen. 
• Also, 2 out of the 3 times I went to the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission, the commission did not have jurisdiction over some of the laws, so I should have been going to the  Court of Queen's Bench.  (And I did not even understand what jurisdiction meant when I was going to court).  This meeting before court would save time and money by not having to re-appeal the case to a higher court room.  ( You want to talk about taxpayer waste and increasing costs to insurance, talk about this.)
• With this formal meeting, this may allow to get rid of mediation, which I thought was a complete waste of time. All SGI did was make excuses at mediation about why they did not give me a benefit (living assistance) for 13 years; they did not try to come to an agreement with me.  And the only reason they went to mediation was to train the ‘new’ adjuster. (I overheard this being said to my new adjuster (Jamie R) from a senior manager, (Gladys N).) Also, I do not think SGI really ever wanted to come to an agreement with me because they took the largest issue to discuss first (which would have a low chance of coming to an agreement between both parties) instead of going with the smallest issue and working your way up.  At least we could have come to an agreement on a few issues at mediation. 
• This meeting before court would also allow new evidence to be presented as well.  For example, I had new evidence that came in at the last minute and I was unsure about how to present it in the case or how lawyers present new information to the opposing party.  So, it ended up being a surprise at the AIAC.  (Figuring out how to present new information would have been due to my poor problem solving skills and decision making as a result of my brain injury which was part of the reason I wanted to go back to the AIAC for other disagreements; to completely understand the system. I always thought that you had to get SGIs permission first, then find the evidence. But you may have to find the evidence first, then ask SGI for payment.  But I do not know)
• This step would be good for someone with a brain injury representing themselves. But I really think the claimants especially the claimants with Brain Injuries, should be represented by lawyers.  More on this on the "Tyrant" page.
• This may speed up the process at the AIAC.  Currently, it takes just as long to go through an appeal at the AIAC as it does the Queen's Bench Court.  This is a definitive fact.  Both myself and another claimant had a similar disagreement with SGI.  Both entered an appeal at the same time, and both finished at almost the same time.  (and I basically quit at the end because I realized how terribly flawed and unfair the No-Fault disagreement process is)
• 3 out of 3 times I went to the commission, SGI tried to come to an agreement in front of the commission.  That's a 100% failure rate and wasting the taxpayer's money.  SGI does not pay for the running of the courts.  The taxpayers do. This meeting would help prevent this from happening.
• This should get rid of some cases.  And reduce some legal expenses.

 3. The ability for the commission members at the AIAC to directly send cases to a higher court room where the AIAC has no jurisdiction over certain laws such as with the Ex-Gratia law or when the case is a very complex matter. 

• This would allow the 2 courts to be more in-sync with each other and would reduce time and taxes because of re-appeals due to jurisdiction issues. Sometimes, the commission members do not have the ability to make a decision due to jurisdiction issues such as Ex Gratia, or US citizens testifying in the court room or paying damages due to SGI being non-compliant with the laws. Although, the formal meeting should reduce a lot of these cases that are sent to a higher court.
• A claimant should NOT have to declare bankruptcy after a case is concluded because he/she went to the wrong court room. And I could have easily gone bankrupt (immediately after my appeal at the AIAC) because the commission members at the AIAC did not have the ability to order SGI to pay for all my medical costs. So even though some medical costs were reimbursed to me, not all medical costs were paid for by SGI because of the limited jurisdiction of the AIAC. The Court of Queens Bench would be able to award the medical costs.
• Mistakes happen and there should be an easy procedure to transfer the case to a higher court. I would have still gone to the AIAC due to me being so naïve and having poor problem solving due to my brain injury.

4. Anyone who has a severe cognitive injury or anyone who is having trouble dealing with therapy while representing themselves to be represented by a lawyer at the AIAC which will save on auto insurance, so the claimants can concentrate on therapy. I talk about cost of a lawyer lower down the page as well as on the "Tyrant" page. This would mean that the reimbursement fees would have to be increased.

• I would actually like lawyers to be used for ALL cases at the commission to broaden the base of the economy and make the playing field even at the commission.  More is talked about this later.
• It was documented multiple times in my injury notes (which SGI knew about, and the commission members asked about in court towards both parties), that I was having trouble with my therapy while going to the appeal board as I have trouble multi-tasking between my therapy and a legal case. I was also having a hard time understanding the process of the legal procedure, even with me watching Law & Order and Matlock. Claimants with Brain Injuries will have trouble multitasking between therapy and representing themselves in court even if they do understand some of the concepts in court.
• My doctor was constantly telling me during the tribunal (and it was being documented in SGI injury notes) that I was decompensating. I did not realize the implication of that at the time. When an individual starts to decompensate, they have the inability to maintain defense mechanisms in response to stress, resulting in functional deterioration usually resulting in psychological issues such as depression, anxiety and so forth.  This has a significant impact on rehabilitation.  I was also becoming emotionally liable which is typical for individuals who sustained Brain Injuries when he/she is dealing with stress. As well, my psychiatric medications were being changed during this time. This is probably why I was yelling at everyone in the court room.
• You are just doubling or tripling the costs of therapy by allowing some claimants to represent themselves in certain cases.  Most (but not all) of the claimants with a brain injury will have sustained a Frontal Lobe brain injury which is in charge of the executive function, so this means that they will have problems with multi-tasking such as dealing with an appeal and concentrating on their therapy.  Plus, with a frontal lobe brain injury it often results in issues with problem solving, decision making and verbal memory, as well as having problems with organizational tasks needed in representing oneself in a court case.  
• My abilities needed to represent oneself in court are VERY weak due to my brain injury. You are just adding to the costs of the insurance system by allowing certain people to represent themselves in certain cases.  The amount of time and effort spent on a case could be put towards other areas in their life including therapy and getting back to work. A brain injury regardless of severity makes it extremely hard to represent oneself in court. Yes, they can represent themselves at the AIAC, it, but at what cost? Their health or their therapy?
• There is an issue of having to deal with payment of the lawyer.  I still would not have been able to pay for a lawyer and there is nothing written up in the legislation about payment if the claimant NEEDS to get a lawyer because it is affecting his/her therapy. As well, the maximum reimbursement amount if a claimant wins his/her case is only $3200 (this used to be $2400) and this would not cover the cost of a lawyer in most cases. So, the costs would have to be eliminated.
• This would help stimulate the economy by allowing lawyers to get involved again.  See the Tyrant page for more information.  Currently, the No-Fault system is stimulating the economy, but not in an effective way.  It is causing excess stress on other parts of the system such as the health care system by some claimants representing themselves causing more health problems.
• This would increase jobs in Saskatchewan and make the economy have a broader base. Lawyers do not do all the work.  That is the person you see in court.  Each lawyer employs secretaries, cleaning staff, research staff, legal assistants, and other people and through this it creates jobs through the local multiplier effect.
• Wasn't that one of the purposes of the creation of SGI in the 1945?  To create more jobs in Saskatchewan and increase tax revenue.
• This will not increase premiums.  Claimants are not suing; that went out with the Torte system. Lawyers would only be involved during the disagreement process. And SGI would have to start making choices about which cases they can actually win.

5. You need to get the lawyers back involved at the disagreement level for EVERYONE.

• The lawyers really need to be involved at the disagreement level.  This would take off the stress on claimants so they can focus completely on therapy. 
• The lawyers do not do all the work; that is just the person you see in the court room. There are many more people who are working behind the scenes to bring the case to court.
• Bringing the lawyers back is not going to make the system expensive; it will just make the system more efficient while increasing taxes to the government, increasing jobs and broadening the base of the economy.
• By not having the lawyers involved in the disagreement level, you are just shifting problems other places such as to services that are tax dependant.  These costs include increase health costs due to more stress.

6. I would like both the decision letter from SGI and the decision letter from the commission to state that the claimants MUST see a lawyer about his/her case immediately after the decision.

• Sometimes, claimants do not realize they need to see a lawyer, especially if they have a brain injury.  They will just seek out help from a layman because they do not understand the problems.  This needs to be included in the decision letter as to be more congruent with the Charter of Rights.
• This needs to be included in both the decision from the Appeal Board as well as the decision letter from SGI.

• This would help claimants also especially those with Brain Injuries who have problems solving skills.
• This would also promote job growth throughout the province of Saskatchewan and increase taxes to the government by broadening the base of the economy.

7. I would like the AIAC commission members to send a standardize form to the claimant’s doctors/therapists to determine whether a claimant’s therapy is being affected by the claimant representing themselves at the AIAC or if it is affecting the claimant emotionally causing problems with their therapy. 

• The form should be standardized, as a letter was sent to my health professional to ask if the appeal was affecting my therapy but there were mistakes made in the documentation.  The letter asked my doctor if I could live by myself and not if I was able to represent myself in court without affecting my therapy.
• Based on the answers of this form, the commission members should have the legal ability to order the claimant to seek representation to help the claimant.
• If representing yourself at an appeal is causing problems with a claimant's therapy, then something else should be done to help. The purpose of No-Fault was to focus on therapy.  If a lawyer was hired, it would have allowed me to concentrate on my therapy which would have offset the cost of the lawyer.  (Although, I guess it wouldn’t have mattered anyway, SGI reduced my living assistance benefit by about 80% when I first started to get the benefit after a decade so I couldn’t do anything even if I wanted to)
• If the claimant gained or lost a lot of weight during the tribunal, if there was emotional liability or huge disorganization during a tribunal, this could be a sign that it could be affecting the claimant’s health and/or therapy. What is the government trying to do … make the claimant’s health get worse and increase medical costs?
• Health care costs could also be increasing due to the stress while some claimants are representing themselves.  So, the costs Saskatchewan saves by getting claimants to represent themselves is being eliminated by the decline in therapy and the extra health constraints being put on the health care system in certain circumstances. 

• So instead of the AIAC being a cheaper alternative to get resolutions between a claimant and SGI, this was a more expensive way to go in my case.  After my appeal was over, I still had a bottleneck of therapy to do because my therapy was put on hold until I finished my appeal and more bottleneck was added during the appeal.
• There should be a standardized letter from the commission to the lawyer explaining the situation and explaining the problems regarding the need of a lawyer at the AIAC. I have problems explaining myself especially to a lawyer. They just hang up on me!
• If a lawyer is needed, then the requirements of reimbursement costs of appealing SGIs decision should be more liberal since retention of a lawyer would be helping with his or her therapy. 
• This would be a moot issue if laws were in place allowing costs awarded to the claimant were higher allowing the claimant to get a lawyer to represent him/her. And I think the costs awarded should be eliminated anyway.  (More on this lower down and on the "Tyrant" page)

8. During the same time, it should be asked whether the claimant was called to do jury duty in the past and if he/she was able to fulfill that duty? Why or why not? 

• I was asked to do jury duty about 1/2 year earlier, but my doctor did not want me to be on Jury Duty due to it affecting my rehabilitation.  Why did I have to decline from Jury Duty, but it was ok to represent myself in court?

9. During the same time, it should be asked whether the claimant is able to keep up with regular activities in their life while representing themselves at the tribunal.

• Because I was so focused on my appeal, I neglected going to my regular eye and dental appointments, and now I have a lot of extra medical expenses to pay for because I neglected these appointments while going to my appeal.

 
10. I would also want it to be asked who filled out the AIAC form to start an appeal.  I did not.  I had to go to the Brain Injury Society, and they had to fill out the form.  They were the ones to decide which court I went to.  

• I phoned lawyers, none of them would help me. They said there was no money in No-Fault.
• So, if the claimant did not fill out the form, how can they represent themselves in a court room? 

11. I would like the AIAC (Automobile Injury Appeal Commission) to have the telephone numbers and fax numbers of the re-appeal court on the AIAC website AND included in the decision from the AIAC to help claimants with cognitive impairments as well as other claimants representing themselves.  This would be more in-line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which I think the AIAC is currently violating. This infraction could result in many decisions that were not re-appeal be re-enacted due to the Canadian Charter of Rights being violated.

• My visual memory is stronger than my verbal memory and this was a problem for me when I sent my re-appeal application to the wrong fax number when the fax number was told to me over the phone. (My verbal memory is extremely low) Contact information to the higher court that appeared on a website would be helpful for claimants with cognitive disabilities and be congruent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• I would also like the 're-appeal form' as well as all relevant telephone and fax numbers needed to re-appeal the decision included in the decision letter from the AIAC. (If claimants are representing themselves with no legal education or they have a cognitive injury, this information NEEDS to be included in the decision letter just like a pamphlet is included in SGI's decision letter when SGI declines a benefit). This will help many people who have a cognitive injury or anyone who represented themselves at the AIAC or who are having trouble explaining their situation to a lawyer to re-appeal their case to the proper courts.
• Even if the claimant does not have a cognitive injury, all the relevant information needs to be included in the decision letter from the AIAC to assist them in re-appealing the decision. No one knows the claimant’s strengths or weaknesses. Make the system fair. (and I am positive that the AIAC would not forget to put in a pamphlet like SGI does) An explanation needs to be included about what to do to re-appeal the decision. (Read below for further info.)
• This would help claimants who have disabilities affecting their verbal memory, communication, problem solving, decision making, slow processing speed, and hearing issues.  Let’s make the process fair with regards to claimants who have disabilities.  If a claimant goes to the AIAC, they are doing everything themselves until a lawyer takes over.
• I would also like for the decision letter both from the AIAC and when SGI issues a decision letter to "tell" the claimants to go see a lawyer immediately.  My problem solving is extremely low, so I didn't think about seeing a lawyer to re-appeal the decision. I had thought because I represented myself at the AIAC, I would have to represent myself at the re-appeal.

12. I would like the process the claimant has to follow included in the court decision from the AIAC if he/she does not agree with the decision.  THIS IS A MUST!!!

• After the AIAC makes a decision, there MUST be written instruction from the commission informing the claimant on the process to follow next IF the claimant has to re-appeal the decision from the AIAC.  There are a few reasons for this:
  • When SGI makes a decision, SGI must include a decision letter and pamphlet instructing the claimant what to do if he/she disagrees with the decision.  Why is there not instruction and a pamphlet for the claimant after a decision from the AIAC when he/she just represented themselves in court, yet there are instructions after SGI makes a decision?  The claimant did not become an instant lawyer magically knowing the next step in the process to re-appeal the AIAC decision.  You may say the next step is to see a lawyer.  But you would be assuming a claimant knows this ... based on what? They may have not done this before. They may have a disability affecting them re-appealing.  (Please read the next sub-point for more explanation.)  Therefore, I would like the steps to follow in the decision letter from the AIAC.  For example, putting on the decision letter from the AIAC, "you have to see a lawyer as the claimant can not represent themselves at the re-appeal court." That would have helped me tremendously because I did not realize you had to visit a lawyer after the decision from the AIAC was made.  I thought I would also have to represent myself at the re-appeal. 
  • Also, a claimant who has a frontal lobe brain injury may have challenges with executive functioning such as problem solving, slow processing speed, initiation, judgement, etc. which would affect them completing the next step of the process.  After, I received the decision from the AIAC, I just looked at the decision not knowing what to do next.  There was no instruction, there were no numbers to call and no pamphlet stating what to do after receiving the decision. I had no idea what to do. This was an issue with my problem-​solving ability, initiation and problems with decision making due to my brain injury.
  • A form to re-appeal the decision should be included with the AIAC decision letter for the claimant to complete.  A person who has never done this before, would not know where to get a form to re-appeal the decision. I didn't. I had to phone the AIAC to get a form.
  • This could be a Charter issue especially if the claimant had a cognitive injury affecting their ability to do the next step to re-appeal the decision without any assistance.

 13. I would like the appeal costs (to be reimbursed by SGI) increased yearly by the rate of inflation if the claimant wins his/her case or possibly eliminate the cap on appeal costs.

• When the AIAC was enacted in 2002, it was initially thought that both parties would represent themselves at the AIAC and that it would be over minor issues. However, disagreements are often over tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and SGI always uses members of their legal team.  So, since SGI has changed the rules, the $2400 or $3200 reimbursement cost is a slap in the face to claimants.  Either stop letting SGI use their legal team or increase the reimbursement amount so the appeal process is fair.
• The law currently states the Commission can order SGI to pay your expenses up to $3200 (previously $2400) in preparing for your appeal if you are successful against SGI. Why not have a yearly increase congruent with inflation?  Everything else is increased according to the inflation rate; why not do the same with the appeal costs.  (Please see more about inflation under the tab "Lawyers, Judges & Inflation"-- Inflation IS NOT being calculated right). The reimbursement cost would be over $12,000 or higher if it were increased yearly according to the 'old' inflation rate.
• Do not forget ... SGI ONLY must pay the appeal costs IF the claimant WINS their court case and SGI is found in the wrong. SGI does not have to pay for appeal costs if the claimant loses.  The claimants win about 1/3 of the cases in front of the AIAC (it seems, by looking at the decisions on the AIAC website)
• The lawyers for the claimants would ONLY be paid by SGI, IF AND ONLY IF the claimants won their case for getting benefits SGI should have given them anyway.
• The cap should be eliminated if a claimant WINS their court case against SGI.  Why do the claimants have to pay for legal costs when they should have been receiving the benefit anyway and SGI is found to be wrong? This is the cost of doing business. It may have been just a terrible adjuster who declines payment for benefits.

14. If the claimant wins the case at the AIAC, I would also like certain medical costs paid for by SGI (over and above the $3200 currently) IF these costs were determinant in them winning the case. (This must be legislated by Saskatchewan's politicians; it can not just be stated). 

• For example, in my case, SGI NEVER got a Living Assistance assessment done on me for over 13 years to determine my need for assistance.  (Usually, SGI gets an assessment done every couple of months/years.)   When the commission members asked SGI in court if they would pay for my assessment, SGI said "NO' emphatically -- I would have to pay for the living assistant assessment done in my claim that cost $15,000, when SGI never did one in all those years.  They only got a layman to dictate the rejection of the assessment.  In my decision from the AIAC, the commission members did ask for SGI to pay for this cost because SGI relied on this assessment heavily, but in principle, SGI could have re-appeal my case based on this part of the decision due to the ambiguous nature of the legislation for this financial reimbursement.  And SGI would have won that part of the re-appeal, due to the way the legislation is worded, even though I never got a living assistance assessment done during the life of my claim.
• Besides, under the legislation, SGI is required to pay for medical assessments.  If the commission states that the claimant wins based on his medical evidence as opposed to SGIs medical evidence.  It would make sense to have that medical assessment or costs paid for over and above the $3200. Do not forget ... SGI ONLY must pay the appeal costs IF the claimant WINS their court case and SGI is found in the wrong; not if the claimant loses.
• SGI can always appeal the decision if they think the costs were not determinant in the claimant winning the case. SGI lawyers are on salary.
• And NOT paying for all the medical expenses can cause a larger problem later because SGI gets smart like they did with changing the rules for getting their lawyers involved and say "Let's not get an assessment done and save money.  Even if the claimant goes to court and wins, the claimant will have to pay for the assessment.  So we, SGI will still save money.  You may say SGI wouldn't do this, but that is exactly what happened in my case.  SGI reduced the benefit by around 80% of what the Occupational Therapist stated a claimant needed.  So this claimant had to go to court to fight to get the benefit reinstated to the levels the OT stated the claimant needed AND THEN SGI wanted the claimant to pay for the assessment which was $15000.  And because there is a limit of $3200 on the legal expenses, they could have gotten away with this.
• This would be a moot issue if the cap on reimbursement costs for winning a case against SGI were eliminated.

 
15.  I would like the Government of Saskatchewan to allow for 100% tax deductions/credits for court and health costs in a claim that SGI will not pay for.  (This is different than from the above suggestion.)

• This is a 2-point issue.
• Court costs: I would like any court costs over and above the amount the reimbursement costs SGI pays for to be tax deductible and transferable to another family member if the claimant wins their case.  Do not forget this is only if the claimant wins their case against SGI.  This would be a moot issue if the cap on reimbursement costs were eliminated and SGI had to pay for all the court costs if the claimant won.
• Health Costs: Just because the claimant did not win his/her case against SGI and it did not meet the requirement for SGI to pay for it does not diminish the fact that this treatment or procedure or item may have help the claimant. It just did not fall within the No-Fault legislation for it to be paid for by SGI.  This extra cost provided jobs and tax dollars so why shouldn't the claimant be able to have a tax deduction for the health cost.
• This would have helped my parents a lot, so they could have deducted the costs of travel, meals and hotel bills while helping me with my daily activities over the years. (This would have been probably included in damages I would have gone to the right court room)  But this does become an issue if SGI starts to decline benefits on a regular basis because they make the assumption that the family can now just deduct the cost from their taxes.
• This tax deduction should be transferable to another family member as the claimant may still not be working at this time.

• All these costs typically have to do with hiring professionals in your case which is a benefit to the economy and promotes job growth. 

16. I would like SGI to be represented by SGI's adjuster's instead of SGIs lawyers at the AIAC OR increase the allowance of expenses paid to the claimant if they win their case so the claimants can hire a lawyer.   Right now, SGI is represented by SGI's in-house lawyer and the adjuster is present at the AIAC as well. Let's make the playing field FAIR! (This is different than #8 suggestion)

• Either allow SGIs adjuster to represent SGI or increase or allow SGI to pay for all legal costs paid for if the claimant wins the case.
• Don't forget -- Claimants are not suing; that went out when Saskatchewan went from the Torte to the No-Fault legislation.  All the claimants are trying to do is get benefits to help them recover from their injury and return to work.  SGI could be denying benefits just because they have the power and can. This is what they did in one case where a claimant never received a benefit for over 13 years.

• This would allow a more even playing field at the AIAC.  SGI's adjuster must be at the appeal anyway, why not let them represent SGI? SGI is just doubling their costs by having 2 employees from SGI at the appeal commission.  With a meeting before hand, SGI would be able to decrease or eliminate legal fees substantially if an agreement was come to at the formal meeting prior to court proceedings.  At one appeal, SGI had 2 lawyers and an adjuster at the AIAC representing their side. When asked to the commission members why SGI had 2 lawyers representing them, they stated SGI could have up to 2 lawyers representing them. Whereas the claimant could have as many lawyers as she wanted for $2400. (The logic behind this is absurd!) Please be careful with this one.  Knowing SGI, SGI will stop having the adjuster there and let the lawyer do everything as to cut down on costs and only have one person at the commission.
• When the AIAC was enacted, it was initially thought the disagreements would be about small issues and the adjusters would represent SGI against the claimants, so this was the reason the reimbursement costs were set very low.  However, this is not the case.  The cases are often complex, and SGI has their lawyer's represent SGI where the claimant has to hire a lawyer to compete. (Please read Cash and Crash by Ken Noble/ Reginald A. Watson which explains this better)
• I think increasing reimbursement costs and allowing lawyers to handle the case would be a better option.  It would increase jobs, tax revenue and allow the claimants to focus on therapy which would be more inline with the No-Fault system. Given the inflation rate, the reimbursement costs should be over $12,000. Check out the "inflation" tab.
• I would like the cap of the reimbursement costs eliminated so the claimants can be represented by a lawyer so they can concentrate on therapy.  Read more on the Tyrant page to find out why.
• If you can not increase the reimbursement costs if the claimant wins their court case, then the claimants should be able to take a free law course to help them with their appeal.  But this just devalues every other law degree in Saskatchewan and is in complete opposite of the purpose of the No-Fault Law. Then, claimants are trying to learn about law and NOT trying to heal.
• You will help stimulate the economy with this new law change.  Please see the Tyrant page for more information.

17. Even though each party can have up to two lawyers at other court rooms, there should be a restriction of only 1 lawyer per party at the AIAC unless you eliminate the cap on expenses if the claimant wins the case against SGI.

• Make the playing field even.  SGI can have up to 2 lawyers and the claimant has to represent themselves due to restriction of payments. Please read above where I talk about when SGI had 2 lawyers representing SGI and I could have as many lawyers as I wanted for $2400.
• This must be written into law. SGI massages the laws to suit their needs.
• The one caveat is if there was a student lawyer assisting an actual lawyer to help the student learn.

18. I would like a survey to be given to a claimant going to the AIAC immediately after they concluded the appeal at the AIAC on how the process went to rectify a disagreement with SGI.  (while they are still present at the AIAC building). I would also like a survey to be given to a claimant who put in an appeal to the AIAC but decided to withdraw or close the appeal.  It would be good to understand why they decided to withdraw the appeal. I would also like a survey done to claimants who went to mediation.  (But I think that mediation should be eliminated completely.)

• Doing this immediately after the claimants went through the appeal process would allow all the ideas to be fresh in a person's head and to get an honest rebuttal of the system.  Do not do this 5 years after they went to get a decision changed in their claim.  By this time, they will have moved on and things will be forgotten. At the beginning of their appeal, the claimants should be told they will fill out a survey critiquing the appeal process, so they can make note about the problems they see while going through the appeal.  This step would be in conjunction with my first suggestion of reassessing the No-Fault system every 4 years.
• I would also like the commission members to fill out the survey after each legal proceeding. They often notice things that need to be changed as well. Get them to fill out a survey right after the appeal is finished while suggestions are fresh in their mind.
• This would help the committee when there was a reassessment done every 4 years on the No-Fault System.

19. I would like the AIAC commission members to have the ability to approve counselling for the claimant after the appeal, if it deems necessary.

• If the claimant had problems dealing with going to the appeal board, then these problems should be addressed to prevent other more serious issues especially in the recent public displays of retaliation in the world such as school shootings, etc.
• I was quite emotional during the appeal as I was just beginning to understand what SGI did for all those years.  I believe the commission members could see it was taking a toll on me emotionally.   However, after the appeal, my psychologist would not help me deal with the problems that arose from not receiving living assistance for all those years.  She stated it is a conflict of interest. When I asked SGI if they would pay for it, they stated no.
• If there was a meeting to decide which court room to go to, this step could be eliminated as the Court of Queen's Bench could have addressed these issues.  But they should still have the ability to approve of counselling for the claimant as well.

20. I would like the legislation to change to see claimants given speech therapy and other therapies and rehabilitation services needed in their first year of rehabilitation instead of waiting until the second year of therapy or later.

• I never received Speech Therapy until my second year, and I believe it would have helped me a lot in recovery if I would have received it in my first year. Speech therapy does not just involve speaking, it involves things such as memory, concentration, divided attention, and so forth.
• Costs are just increasing if you do not receive benefits in a timely matter because it takes a claimant longer to heal.
• Also, living assistance should be given in the first year of therapy, instead of years later.  This would help claimants out a lot as well.
• SGI sometimes gives benefits in the second year or later, when they should be given in the first year to improve therapy.
• This NEEDS to be written in law.

21. I would also like a more of a serious tone at the AIAC during recesses. I was not impressed with the way the AIAC proceedings were handled during recesses sometimes. 

• This did not happen in just one appeal; it happened in multiple appeals.  It is the atmosphere or culture at the AIAC. The commission members and the SGI lawyers were taking and joking around like "a bunch of old school chums" during the recesses. I shouldn't know about Paul McIntyre's vacation with his wife to Hawaii or SGI's lawyer arthritis being helped with acupuncture or that a judge had a motorcycle accident in the States and they were unsure if he would be back to the bench by the end of the year. And maybe I took it more to heart because I am fighting for benefits I really need and needed years ago, and everyone was talking so cavalier during the recesses.  I was not any less stressed during the recesses than when I was in court.
  
  

22.  I would like a check by an independent party on claimants to ensure they are being told about the benefits available to them and to ensure they are getting their benefits from the monopoly, SGI. I would also like a check to make sure they are getting decision letters.  Doing this would not relieve SGI of any legal obligations to claimants.  The No-Fault system currently works under the 'honor' system without any balances or checks by the Government of Saskatchewan making the No-Fault system more of a lottery system than an insurance system.

• This could possibly be done by the AIAC since they are supposed to be an independent party. This check should be done more so on claimants with Brain Injuries. I think SGI would take more advantage of a claimant with a brain injury. Claimants with Brain Injuries are the most susceptible to SGI’s manipulations, lies and nefarious tactics so they may not get all their needed benefits.  This check must be done by an independent party from SGI. This essentially has to do with the fact that SGI is a monopoly in Saskatchewan, and it is not a free market. This would make the No-Fault system more congruent with Canadian Charter Rights especially if SGI is taking more advantage of claimants with Brain Injuries.
• The phone calls from this independent party may have to be extremely specific in nature such as blatantly asking if he/she has gotten this benefit or not.  If I got a phone call from a random party checking to see if I was being told my benefits and if I was getting all my benefits over the years, I may have been oblivious to this when talking to someone, just because of my "Pollyanna" look out on everything in my claim.  (I remember I saw a claimant on a Saskatchewan news outlet and they were talking about not receiving Living Assistance for a few years and after hearing her experience, I was so glad I had such a great adjuster, Darlene F. who gave me all my benefits. -- This great adjuster I was thinking of was the one who did not give me living assistance for 13 years.) Claimants who do not receive help and have sustained a Brain Injury will even have trouble opening their mail due to their brain injury, which is why a phone call would be beneficial to claimants with Brain Injuries. They should actually do both mail and phone call checks. ​
• If the government does not want to provide a check on SGI, then they should move away from a monopoly and go to a free market auto insurance system because a free market system would provide the competition for the insurance providers to give the best insurance possible.  With monopolies, that is not always a guarantee.  
• A check on the system in Saskatchewan has been suggested by other professionals.  Maybe a full ‘check’ can not be done on all claimants at this time, but a ‘check’ on claimants who sustained brain injuries, claimants who took air ambulance and claimants who are easily taken advantage of would definitely be achievable and somewhere to start.  Maybe checking on a few other random claimants just to keep SGI on their toes as well.
• Over the years, SGI has not been giving out decision letters regarding decisions they make so this is also another issue to be checked on.
• Even if the AIAC, can only do 1 check on a claimant a day, this would be at least 200 claimants in 1 year. This would probably be a 3-minute phone call, plus another 3 more minutes to do up a letter to go out to a claimant.
• They need to make sure to ask if the adjuster is sending out pamphlets explaining everything and if the adjusters are explaining all the benefits and procedures as this DID NOT happen in my claim.
• Since there is no check on the system, your insurance system is more like a lottery system because there is no guarantee that you will get all of your benefits in a timely matter or be told what the benefits are. This is different than the Torte insurance system as everyone got a lawyer and sued.  But with the No-Fault system, SGI MUST give out the benefits, but a lot of time they do not.​  
• If the Government does not want to provide a check on the No-Fault System, then why don't we just get rid of all the police in Saskatchewan and police ourselves.  We are adults.  We can do it.  You may think this is ludicrous, but that is what SGI is doing right now.  SGI is policing themselves under the No-Fault System. 

23. I would like the adjusters who deal with Injury claims to be legislated to have a medical background or SGI to have a higher standard to employ SGI Injury Claim adjusters.

• This all started with one adjuster and currently there is absolutely NO standard for who is hired as an injury claim representative. Some of the injury adjusters SHOULD NOT be holding the positions they are in right now.  The adjuster who did not give a claimant a benefit for 13 years was an accountant by trade.  What were her qualifications for being employed as an injury claim adjuster at SGI instead of an accountant at SGI?  And would this have been prevented if she had a medical background?  My last adjuster (Bonnie G) was a secretary previously and she was not particularly good. She was AWEFUL! (No offense to secretaries; she just does not know what she is doing, and the learning curve is VERY slow with a layman whereas with a person with medical background seems to be faster) Bonnie G. took about 6 months to photocopy some files to me (and she didn't even send the correct documents; whereas my current adjuster took 3 hours to do the same job -- that is 32000% increase in time it took for Bonnie G to do) What makes her qualified to be in an injury claim position?   Is the only reason she in this position because she gave a good interview?  Well, Oscar the Grouch could give a good interview occasionally, have good references, and have a good job performance, but does that mean he is qualified to be an Injury Claim Adjuster?   Does SGI have any hiring standards for Injury Claim Adjusters? The BEST injury adjusters I have had are individuals with medical backgrounds including a nurse, a social worker, and some other medical trade person. They understand the process of rehabilitation better than others. Why?!? Because they went to school for a medical profession and know the procedures of rehabilitation.  But what does a secretary or an accountant know about the rehabilitation process?  Do a few seminars SGI provides their employees make them qualified to make these important rehabilitation decisions? 
• This is just an extra cost to SGI (and to you, the Saskatchewan public) by employing unqualified adjusters because they are being paid for a position they are not qualified for. I suspect my last adjuster was hired by a previous employee who worked at that claim center because she reminds me a lot of that employee.  People tend to hire other people who remind them of themselves which is not always the best policy and often causes problems especially if a company wants to improve and be innovative. Although, it does increase retention rates by hiring similar people to you.

24. I would like to see consequences for adjusters who do not follow the law or do not give a claimant his/her needed benefits.  Again, this has to do with the fact that the No-Fault system is based on an "honor" system.

• The SGI employees get rewarded for working at SGI with excellent pay and benefits, so why not get disciplined as well?  Two or three weeks after my decision came back from a committee, the adjuster who did not give me Living Assistance for all those years, was not discipline but instead rewarded with an early pension.  She was NOT fired; she did not retire, she got early retirement.  It was of no concerned to her to get early retirement as she had a business on the side and possibly got another job.  (She documented in my file that she had a business on the side and I remember asking where my adjuster went after the decision came down from the committee where I was told she retired)
• Any adjuster who did not give a benefit to a claimant for over 2 years to be disciplined or possibly fired. I do not know what the solution is.  But if you continue to do nothing, more claimants will not get his/her benefits and SGI will just keep giving the adjuster's early pensions to get rid of them. This is not a free market.  There is a difference.  With a free market system, the adjuster would have been fired.  The company would not be complacent with that.
• SGI, nor the government checked to make sure this was an isolated event or if this adjuster did not give other claimants all the benefits he/she is entitled to. Or maybe it had to do with that particular claim center that was not giving out all the benefits or was it just to claimants with brain injuries that did not get all their benefits. No one knows.  SGI could say I was the only person this happened to, but they really are just guessing unless there was a check to see what happened and if more claimants were affected.

25. I would like a place on SGI website or online to be able to rate your adjusters. 

• This would help with SGI being more transparent, help the adjusters see some of their errors, help other claimants as well as help SGI become a better company.
• It is a monopoly and since there is no competition, SGI must be kept accountable.  This is just one way to do this.
• Although, I would have given my adjuster a great rating due to my brain injury and not knowing what she was doing.
• SGI does not have to do this; anyone can create a website to rate adjusters.

26. Fines given to SGI when they do not give the claimant a decision letter or follow the laws. Again, this has to do with the No-Fault system currently works under the 'honor' system without any balances or checks by the Government of Saskatchewan.

• I think I mentioned this point above. IDK.
• When Saskatchewan went from Torte to No-Fault system, responsibilities changed.  With the Torte system, the onus was on the individual to make sure they got everything they were entitled to, so they got a lawyer.  But with the No-Fault system, the onus was shifted to SGI to tell the individuals/claimants what the benefits are and give out decision letters.  Often, they do not hand out pamphlets or give out decision letters to the claimants.
• The Saskatchewan public gets fines when we do something wrong.  Why is SGI immune to fines when they do something wrong? If SGI does not want fines for their bad behavior, move back to the Torte System or do the correct behavior.
• Fines sanction negative behavior. These fines can help pay for the costs of running the AIAC court room in Saskatchewan. These fines should be higher in nature, because a $200 is not a deterrent to SGI. However, SGI would say this is punitive damages, but they may not be necessarily especially since SGI is a monopoly. Based on an $8,000,000 profit, these fines would be around $20,000. (Please see how I calculated this number under the Tyrant tab)
• I would even like to see adjusters penalized.  Maybe one day unpaid.  You may say this is harsh... but how do you get this to stop?  Sure ... it is not handing out a decision one day but somehow it ends up a claimant does not end up with a benefit for years. Maybe penalizing adjusters for small infractions will prevent larger problems. (There was a study done with this that shows this, but I do not know where to find it or what it was called specifically.)

27. I would like it legislated that the adjuster of the claimant (who just finished an appeal at the AIAC), remain with claimant during the 1-month time frame a person is able to re-appeal the decision from the AIAC. 

• Once I received my decision letter from the AIAC, my adjuster was changed over 9 times in the 1-month period you have to re-appeal the decision to a higher court.  The changes in my adjusters did not start immediately after my appeal finished but instead started when I received my decision letter. All the changes in adjusters did not stop until the 1-month period to appeal the decision was over. I even had an adjuster for one day.  I have the emails to document this. Are you crazy? … add this to a person who has a brain injury and I was just ready to lose my mind.
• Also, a check should be done after the appeal is finished on claimants to ensure this is not happening. 
• Saskatchewan has a monopoly.  This must be legislated.

28. I would like the Claimant's Expense form to be updated (because it is too antiquated) and I would like it downloadable from SGI's website. 

• There is no reason why I should be bugging my adjuster for more Expense Forms when it could be downloadable from the website.  They have enough work to do. 
• Also, since SGI does not hand out any more pamphlets documenting the benefits because SGI says it is too expensive and tell you to go on the website to look it up, why not have the expense sheet on the website also?

  29. Full disclosure when SGI has rate adjustments and hikes. 

• During the rate hike in 2009, at least 2 or more people were going to court over not receiving benefits from SGI.  Both, the politicians, and SGI knew this, as I received letters from Brad Wall, Ken Cheveldayoff, June Draude, as well as the President of SGI at the time.  It was even documented in my file that some politicians talked to my adjuster asking questions about what happened during my claim. I believe the insurance price increase was strategically increased during that month in 2009 as the two courts had finished and both were waiting for court decisions.  If SGI would have waited another 3 months for the rate increase, the decisions would have been out, and opposition may have been presented to oppose the increase in rates.  Supposedly, the reason stated for the rate hikes in 2009 was to address the increased costs in therapy but why?  SGI was not giving out benefits to everyone anyway.
• Over the last few years, I have heard of about 4 to 5 people not getting the benefits they need.
• An independent party such as the AIAC and Queen's Bench court room needs to be able to give a list of cases from claimants going to court when SGI is proposing a rate hike and possibly what it is over. And then an independent party present it to the public. Names should not have to be disclosed due to privacy. But I don't know.  With a free-market system, this would not have to happen.  Listen to Milton Friedman for more on a free market.  I think he's hilarious!

30. I would like SGI lawyers re-addressing the court room of the AIAC if situations change regarding a question asked by the commission members.

• This would have to relate to full disclosure in a court room.

• At the beginning of the tribunal the commission members asked SGI’s lawyer, if something like this had happened before with a claimant not getting their benefits. SGI’s lawyer (June E) stated ‘No’.  Meanwhile, SGI was preparing to go to the Queen's Bench with another claimant for the same issue while I was going to the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission. (And I am sure that SGIs lawyer knew this unless she was stuck in a bubble). Even if the proceedings were not in front of a court/judge yet, SGI’s lawyer should have readdressed the AIAC commission members with the change of answer as soon as SGI became aware of this.  (The lawyers represent SGI as a single entity and not each individual adjuster’s case; plus, the question was asked specifically towards SGI and not a specific adjuster.)

31. I would like some education given to the commission members on some of the different head injuries which affect the claimant’s ability to represent themselves in front of the AIAC. Some may not be able to represent themselves due to their disability.

• With a frontal lobe brain injury, there are a lot of executive functioning deficits such as problem solving, slow processing speed, perseveration, multi-tasking, decision making, initiation and problems switching tasks which is a big issue if a claimant has a large time-consuming case to deal with and still has therapy to do.
• This is where I think a lawyer representing a claimant who had severe cognitive disability at the AIAC would possibly lower costs, so the claimant is able to 100% concentrate on his/her therapy so they could recover faster and get back to work faster.
• Or maybe get an expert to testify about the problems the claimant is having with representing themselves.  This should be over and above the reimbursement costs a claimant is paid if they win the case. But I think a cap on reimbursement costs should be removed.

32.  I would like a communication class in the last year of law school to help lawyers deal with people who have cognitive disabilities.  Or maybe get the Law Association to deal with this.  IDK.

• I talked to numerous lawyers over my claim, when I was preparing to go to the AIAC, during my tribunal at the AIAC as well as when I was re-appealing the AIAC decision, but all the lawyers did not seem to realize the full extent of my problems with SGI.  Or maybe they need more topics on monopoly law.  Or maybe it was me.  I don't know.
• Lawyers need to ask claimants who call them if they are getting their benefits and how the claimants know this. Assuming that SGI is giving everyone all the benefits to the claimants is not acceptable.
• If a lawyer is ever talking to a person with a brain injury, the best thing they can say to the person, "Is tell me your problem in 10 words or less" That works for me.  My communication is kind of circular-- I talk in circles.
• Sometimes, the best lawyer is not the one who memorizes all the idiosyncrasies of the law, but one who can understand a person's problem completely.

33. I would like an “on-call” student lawyer/lawyer who is independent of SGI to help claimants with Brain Injuries to assist them explaining their situation to a lawyer. 

• This will probably only deal with people with Brain Injuries. I went to and called various lawyers while going through my appeal, but for some reason I could not seem to get a lawyer to help me or understand my needs. However, I was able to get a student lawyer to understand what happen.  This student lawyer/lawyer would help the claimant with the communication to a lawyer to help them become aware of the claimant's problems/needs.
• But if lawyers were to become involved in the disagreement process again, then this may not be as much of a problem because lawyers would try to listen more as they could  actually make money if they took a case and won.

34. The option of not buying auto insurance (an ‘opt-out’) from SGI if you had a bad claim with them. 

• You may say this is against a monopoly policy.  But I think it just helps the monopoly be better.  If SGI can become blatantly aware of their mistakes and know they could lose customers, it will help them improve as a company.
• If SGI makes little or no mistakes, then SGI should have nothing to worry about.
• There would have to be some legal procedure to this.
• Maybe it would only be for a 5-year time limit on this 'opt out'

35. I would like the Government of Saskatchewan and SGI to work together to implement a Do Not Resuscitate program (DNR) for the drivers for those who would not like to be resuscitated if in an accident.

• I currently have a Do Not Resuscitate on my license in case I ever get in an accident in Saskatchewan, but I do not think that is good enough, so I would like a program designed in Saskatchewan for this purpose.

36. I would like assisted dying to be addressed for claimants in Saskatchewan. 

• Why not just have the option of having assisted suicide available to claimants?  It would typically have to be after 2 years after the accident.  This is when the claimant's improvement has leveled off and any improvements after this time will be minimal.
• There would have to be a procedure for the claimants wanting assisted suicide and this would have to deal with the MAID program.  (Medical Assistance In Death)
• But this becomes a problem if SGI is not giving out benefits in a timely manner because then they would be more inclined to use the MAID program.

37. If a claimant commits suicide, I would like SGI to help with all the issues surrounding that as I don't think it should rest solely on the family.

• I do not think it should rest solely on the claimant's family especially if it has to do with the claim.

38. I would like the AIAC more congruent with the charter of rights. 

• When you ask for a lawyer, you should get one.  AFTER court started, SGI offered me a deal. I wanted to talk to a lawyer to see if SGI was offering me a good deal because I have poor problem-solving skills, judgement and decision making due to my brain injury.  Instead, the commission member state “Let’s try to muddle through this first”.  It did not matter how long we muddled through the court case it would not help me to problem solve and decide if that was a good deal SGI offered me -- I needed help with trying to make a decision. In the end, I just took SGIs deal because the commission members were not allowing me to see a lawyer and if I lost the case, it would cost me a lot of money.  I figured some money was better than nothing. 
• I was also at another appeal at the AIAC and it took me three times of asking to see a lawyer before I could see a lawyer.  I think there is a reason why the commission does not you to see a lawyer once you are in court… but I am not sure why…. Probably cost… loss of a day in court.   I don’t know.  Your guess is as good as mine.  Some parts of this system they have in place in Saskatchewan are so stupid, it makes me shake my head sometimes.
• I would also like all the telephone numbers, fax numbers, and all relevant information of the court room to re-appeal the decision enclosed in the decision letter from the AIAC. There should be instructions written in a decision letter of the next steps to follow if you do not agree with the decision.  This will help claimants with cognitive, hearing, and verbal memory problems, etc. when they are representing themselves at the tribunal. As well as having any of the laws that are no longer applicable at the AIAC. This would make the AIAC more in-line with the Charter. 

  39. I would like some laws applied to the AIAC as it applies to other courts. 

• This would include such things as US citizens can testify at the AIAC.
• Currently, the objections are the same as they are in other court rooms, but not necessarily all the laws.
• I also want NO private court meetings with only one party at the AIAC.  It breeds bias in the court room at the AIAC.  This happened at the beginning of my tribunal.  It took me watching 7 years of Law & Order to realize that in typical court rooms, this can not be done.
• When you ask for a lawyer, you should get one.  I talk about this above. 
• But I guess if those laws are similar to other court rooms, then a person getting contempt in a court room should probably be allowed at the AIAC and I could have gotten it multiple times as I as was yelling at everyone.  But that really could have been due to the fact that my psychiatrist was changing my psychiatric medications during the tribunal. Just because the medication is for depression, does not mean the medications are easy to take. My last anti-depressant medication I went off, the doctor had to add another medication to help with the withdrawal side effects which include feeling like you have bugs or spiders crawling all over your body. This anti-depressant medication also caused me to wake straight up from a dead sleep and sit up with your eyes wide open (which is why I went off it in the first place -- I like to sleep)  This current medication I am on, I loose my hair, my liver is effected where I have to get regular liver tests done to prevent damage, I have diarrhea and my libido is all over the bloody map. Plus, I thought I was getting early stages of Parkinson's until I googled the side effects of this medication.
• I would also do not want a change in commission members/judges after the appeal has started.  It is distracting.
• I would also like the lawyers to re-address the court room if circumstances change according to the question that was asked.

​
40. I want the AIAC application form changed. 

• I would like the laws not applicable in the AIAC court room at the current time stated on the form.  This just eliminates tax dollars wasted by going to the wrong court.  The claimants are not lawyers and are not up-to-date on new court decisions that effect the AIAC such as not using the Ex Gratia (because of a precedent set in another case) or that US citizens can not testify at the AIAC.
• This would be congruent with some of the changes I recommended above.
• I would also like it mentioned on the form to see a qualified lawyer. immediately.  If you have a frontal lobe brain injury, you will have issues with problem solving, initiation, etc.  Telling the claimant on the AIAC form to see a qualified lawyer will help immensely with the person who has problem solving ability.
• I went to the AIAC only to find out while I was in front of the commission members, that some of the laws I was planning on using to win my case could not be used at the AIAC because of previous precedents set. 

41. Until most of these issues have been resolved, I would like the AIAC to close and reopen when the government has worked through some of these issues. 

• Any court cases can be rerouted to the Queens Bench court room temporarily.
• Or maybe get rid of the monopoly temporarily in Saskatchewan until there are new law changes.  IDK.

42. I would like rates permanently frozen until these No-Fault claims are rectified and the no-fault system thoroughly reassessed.  This would include a detailed reassessment of disagreement process and/or ensuring claimants got their benefits in the past and in the future.

• I am NOT the only one who has not gotten their benefits. There have been multiple people not getting their benefits from SGI and until all these claims are rectified, I would like the rates permanently frozen until the No-Fault system can be re-assessed thoroughly. 
• In the last year since putting up this website, there have been multiple claimants who have had problems with getting benefits from SGI.

43. I would also like the Government of Saskatchewan and SGI to design a program to help claimants through bankruptcy due to an auto claim which would be separate of the bankruptcy program within Canada.

• Hopefully, by doing this, it can make the bankruptcy process faster and allow for faster rehabilitation.
• Most people do not realize the financial difficulties a person will experience after getting into an injury claim especially if SGI does not give benefits in a timely matter.

44. You may want to re-evaluate Air-Ambulance.  

• I do not mean eliminate it but re-evaluate it.  What is the point of having Air-ambulance if the claimants can not get all their benefits from SGI within the No-Fault system?  Claimants can get worst as a result of not getting their benefits in a timely fashion and not having a proper legal system in place. You are just making the system more expensive by having exceptional emergency transportation with mediocre insurance. This has to do with checks on the insurance system.
• For example, what if a person got air ambulance, got proper treatment in the hospital, but when SGI started with the claimant did not give them all the benefits resulting in the claimant getting worse? Was air ambulance worth it? 
• Maybe the claimants who had air-ambulance need to get checked on by an independent party to make sure they are getting all their benefits in a timely manner. I do not really know what the answer is.
• Saskatchewan has a good emergency (ambulance) process, the hospitals have a good process in place, but Saskatchewan's insurance system and the legal system surrounding the No-fault law needs to be re-evaluated.  You are only as good as your weakest link.

45. There needs to be a longer time to re-appeal a decision from the AIAC. Currently it is one month.

• This is mainly due to the fact if the claimants are going to have to keep representing themselves at the AIAC. All these claimants have an injury of some sort which could cause delays in them re-appealing the decision especially if the claimant has a Brain Injury. This suggestion would be moot if lawyers became involved again at the disagreement level.

46. Let the Claimants take a  FREE 3-month legal course to help them prepare for their court proceedings before appearing at the AIAC.

• If claimants can not get lawyers to represent themselves at the commission or there are not more law changes to involve the lawyers, then maybe Claimant should be allowed to take a 3 month legal course provided by SGI.  You must make things fair.
• But this would be costly to the system, but at least it would be fairer system. 

47. SGI should be looking at claimants who make dramatic improvements to see if they can isolate the variables and replicate the results to speed up healing and reduce therapy costs.

• This must be placed more on the shoulders of SGI or insurance as opposed to any of the medical professionals such as physiotherapists because sometimes, the improvements can be made prior to seeing professionals.  There is a crack in the system between where claimants get out of the hospital and claimants start doing therapy under the guidance of SGI.
• As well, SGI is paying for these costs, so they should be involved to reduce the costs. SGI is usually in contact with the family and claimant from the start of the claim, so they would be the best to give suggestions to the family/claimant.

48. Look into SGI starting therapy earlier instead of having to wait until his or her initial assessment. **

• This may help increase recovery times and reduce later costs.
• There were claimants who started therapy IMMEDIATELY after leaving the hospital.  Their recovery times were faster than average.

49. I would like the commission members to be able to order the claimant to see a lawyer or gets a lawyer to look after the case at the tribunal.

• This could be due to the claimant being unable to understand the facts of the case or the implications of the case brought before the commission.
• This could also be due to the fact the claimant starting to decompensate and not having the ability to realize it.
• I did not realize the implications in my case, and I had thought this was actually a new benefit that Saskatchewan and SGI brought into the No-Fault system. ​

50. If the claimant is adjusting their medications at all, the claimant should be represented by a lawyer.

• The claimant really needs to be focusing on the medication change and not representing themselves in court.
• This is especially true if the medications that are being changed are psychiatric mediations.

You may not agree with some of these ideas but at least I am trying to come up with ideas to try to improve the system. A system MUST be fair to both parties, and currently it heavily favors SGI. It is time for change. If there was a reassessment done on the No-Fault system, SGI CAN NOT be involved in the initial stages.  That is like letting the fox in the hen house and SGI will always find an excuse to have the system lopsided towards them saying it is too costly.
The No-fault system really needs to be re-evaluated thoroughly and on a constant basis.   Essentially, if the cap for costs were eliminated, there was a meeting before hand, the application was changed and there was a check on claimants with the No-Fault system, you wouldn't have to make most of the changes above because they would be moot anyway. But I do not know for sure.  You would have to have professionals such as lawyers involved to deal with these changes as they would be more knowledgeable.

I have thought of a bunch of new laws but due to my Brain Injury I forget them before I can write them down so that is why I would like the No-Fault system re-assessed every 4 years.

   (These changes must be legislated into law as I have found SGI tends to massage what is said to favor themselves.)
If you don't start fixing these problems, there are going to be a whole bunch of smaller problems build until one day the system will not be able to sustain itself.

***There are more changes that could be made but the above 50 suggestions would be a good start.   Please email these suggestions to all the politicians in Saskatchewan. You can find their emails here:    http://www.legassembly.sk.ca/mlas/

You have 4 major steps in a claim: The ambulance system, the hospital system, the insurance system and the legal system.  The ambulance system and the hospital system have a been scrutinized for years and so they are very efficient. They have check and balances with their system. An error should be found quickly. This is not the case with SGI’s No-Fault System and the legal procedure in Saskatchewan surrounding the No-Fault System. The No-Fault system is based on the honor system.  And the legal system surrounding the No-Fault System is EXTREMELY POOR and HEAVILY favors SGI currently.  The government is not planning any reform to provide any balances and checks as of January 2020.  

---

CHANGE DOES NOT HAPPEN ALL AT ONCE BUT IT CAN HAPPEN OVER TIME AND IT CAN START RIGHT NOW!!!
I thought learning to walk again (after an accident) was painful and difficult ... but that was nothing compared to what I experienced with SGI, their adjusters and Saskatchewan's legal system surrounding the No-Fault law.
 
and ....
THIS IS WHY I AM ASKING FOR CHANGE!!!

Click on "Stanford Prison Study & the AIAC" to find out why going to the AIAC is just like the Stanford Prison Study.

Stanford Prison Study & the AIAC

These points are random and may have been mentioned above to some degree but I don't have time to revise this part of the website right now -- if you can just skim thru this and/or move onto the next page, that would better. Some of these points are not thought out thoroughly enough; they are just ideas I put on paper quickly)

• Change the application form to document the restriction of costs on the form.  But the restriction of costs really needs to be put in SGIs decision letter.  But restriction of costs should really be eliminated. Also, have some of the law changes on the form that do not apply to the commission.  This would really help people with Brain Injuries with low problem-solving ability.  Give the commission members MORE jurisdictional powers so they have the ability to legally ORDER a lawyer for the claimant if he/she is struggling with the case or their therapy. Currently, they do not have the ability to do that. Tell the claimants in the decision letter both from SGI and from the commission that the claimants need to see a lawyer.
• I would like a law change that states SGI is NOT allowed SGI to change adjusters or switch adjusters while the claimant has the ability to appeal a decision SGI has made or re-appeal a decision the commission has made.  I had over 9 adjusters in the one month I had to re-appeal the decision the AIAC just made. This was ridiculous.
• There should be a check on the claimant after a decision has been made so he/she understands what he has to do after a decision from the commission IF there is not going to be any instruction of what to do after an appeal decision especially for claimants with Brain Injuries.
• No EARLY retirement if the adjuster did not give a benefit to a claimant for over 2 years.  IF anything, he/she should be disciplined. I don't know really.  But if you continue to do nothing, more and more claimants will not get his/her benefits and SGI will just keep giving the adjuster's early pensions to get rid of them. This is not a free market.  There is a difference.  With a free market system, the adjuster would have been fired.  The company is not going to be complacent with that.
• The ability for the commission to transfer your appeal to the Queens’ Bench court rm
  Put restriction of costs on the legislation on the application of AIAC
  The government and SGI, commission and other courts, need to say who is going to court when there are increases in auto insurance prices
  No quality control over SGI then what is the point of a monopoly
   
  Govt is of SK is creating a multitude of social issues that the tax payers are paying for by having claimants represent themselves
  Even if you do make dramatic changes to the No-Fault system, you need to reassess it in the next 4 years
  More social problems if they do not fix the No -fault system; SGI does not pay for that, taxpayers pay for that.
  If you do not change the system. Then you may need to rethink the monopoly. It was never supposed to be a monopoly forever, anyway.  Maybe go to a duopoly and then eventually change to a free market system.  SGI would still be in SK, they would just have to compete for their market share. The gov’t of SK would still be the shareholders and get dividends, etc.  And with a duopoly they would get dividends from both companies. 
  
  
• I would like to see some changes made to possible the law degree so that there is a communication class in the last year of law school
• I would like to see some assistance given to claimants who have Brain Injuries after the decision is made by the AIAC.
• No increases to Saskatchewan's insurance when there are claimants going to court for not receiving benefits.  When the gov’t of SK raised rates in 2009, there were at least 2 people going to court for not receiving benefits.  And the politician knew there were people going to court for not receiving benefits from SGI when they allowed an increase in prices.  I have letters from some of the politicians.
• I would like lawyers from SGI to re-address the court room when the answer changed that the commission members/ judges asked them from before.  Ex) The commission members asked June, SGI's lawyer if this ever happened to another claimant before to which she replied no.  Meanwhile, at the same time, SGI was in the process of going to a different court in Saskatchewan with another claimant for not receiving benefits in a timely matter.
• I would like 2 weeks notice given to claimants when adjusters change in his/her claim.  When I get new adjusters, I always get confused, especially when I got over 9 adjusters in that one month.  It would help if you could get a 2-week notice when the adjuster's change. It’s not as if SGI just spontaneously changes adjusters willy nilly. SGI knows ahead of time. So, a 2-week notice is completely acceptable.
• I would like to see a new law stated that SGI HAS to give benefits in the FIRST year after an injury claim.  I NEVER received Speech Therapy until my 2nd year after injury and I didn't receive Living Assistance benefits for 13 years.  You need to receive the benefits in a timely matter otherwise what is the point of insurance.
• I would like to see punishment to adjusters who do not follow the laws.
• I would like to see visible and verbal checks on claimants on the most vulnerable such as claimants with Brain Injuries. This cost would offset the cost of not receiving a benefit in a timely matter.
• If the Government of Saskatchewan is not going to increase the reimbursement costs SGI has to pay if the claimant wins, then maybe the government should offer some free courses in law that the claimant can take to assist themselves at the AIAC against SGI. Or start having a local TV station have some law shows like Matlock on 24 hours a day to help the claimants represent themselves at the AIAC.
• Maybe get rid of the monopoly so that competition would be in place in Saskatchewan so that SGI would have to compete to get business and be more responsible in providing insurance in a timely matter.  SGI can do whatever they want right now as long as they do not get caught.
• A few things to take away from this:
  •  no price increase for SGI while there are multiple people going to courts for not receiving benefits in a timely matter.
  • No retirement package or a reduction of retirement package for those not doing his/her job.  Maybe they should be fired or increase the standards of the employees at SGI.
  • If a claimant is de compensating or having a psychological medicine change, maybe they should be able to able to get a lawyer with an increased payment if he/she wins against SGI. They are not suing; just trying to get benefits they need to return to work, etc.
  • Bring back the lawyers the claimant can concentrate on his or her therapy.

Here are some other points mentioning: 

• If a claimant is receiving psychiatric medication changes while going thru an appeal, they should be allowed to have a lawyer help them.  I do not believe a person would be fully capable of representing themselves if they are changing their psychiatric medication especially combined with a Brain Injury.  (My psychiatric medication was being changed by my psychiatrist while I was going thru my appeal which had a significant effect on my thinking and thought process; after my appeal was over I did tried natural remedies but that was quite a while after this appeal and I went back to western medication shortly after that.) Just because these medications are anti-depressants does not mean they are easy medications to switch especially if you have a brain injury.  My last anti-depressant medication I went off, the doctor had to add another medication to help with the withdrawal side affects which include feeling like you have bugs or spiders crawling all over your body. This medication also caused me to wake straight up from a dead sleep and sit up.(which is why I went off it in the first place -- I like to sleep)  This current medication I am on I loose my hair, I have to go for constant blood work to see if it is damaging my liver (b/c it can), I have diarrhea, it can make your hands shake (I thought I had early Parkinson’s until I looked up the side effects) and my libido is all over the map. And THIS is probably the best medication I have been on to help with my depression.
• This may apply to non-psychiatric medications as well depending on the side effects.
• If you have been rejected or could not do jury duty in the recent past, that should be addressed by the AIAC/court.  Why can you not be on jury duty, but you can represent yourself in court?  (I was asked to do jury duty a few months earlier but had to decline due to it effecting my therapy however it was ok to represent myself in court? How can that be?)
• After the decision is made by the commission members, DETAILED, WRITTEN instructions or directions telling the claimant what to do next should be included in the decision, just like SGI does after they make a decision in the claimant's claim. The numbers to call or how to re-appeal should also be included in the document. This would help claimants with Brain Injuries who have low level problems solving skills as well as having low level verbal memory.  (This has to be written on a page; explanation to follow)  I looked at the written decision for a long time, but I could not figure out what I should do next, even though I disagreed with the decision.  There were no instructions, no numbers to call to get further instruction.  NOTHING!  I finally got a number to call from the AIAC, however, when I called the number they gave me so I could get another number to send my re-appeal documents to, I wrote the number's down wrong due to my verbal memory being very low, therefore I faxed the documents to the wrong place.  I believe this is a Charter of Rights issue. 
• Someone from the AIAC should follow-up the decision with a claimant who has a Brain Injury to ensure they understand the process.