Bim’s Car Wash in Special Area #2, located in southern Alberta, has been fined $15,000 by the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta (HRTA) for discriminating against applicant Laureen Cunningham for being an indigenous woman. But Bim's insists there is more to the story. .“Based on the trauma, sleeplessness and loss of dignity and self-esteem arising from the respondent’s discriminatory conduct in this Complaint, I find that an award of $15,000.00 is appropriate as damages,” said HRTA Member Evaristus Oshionebo in a ruling. .“This award underscores the serious nature of the discrimination that occurred in this Complaint.”.The ruling said Cunningham alleged discrimination in goods and services on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and gender. She entered Bim’s about one week before the complaint was filed and purchased a premium car wash for her vehicle. .Upon completion of the car wash, she noticed several dirty spots on her vehicle. She asked to speak with Bim’s manager and was directed to another staff member, who was the most senior employee at the location at the time of the incident. .Cunningham made repeated requests to speak to the manager, and the employee said he had been called in. She agreed to wait and sat in her car. .The applicant said Bim's manager Donald Cox approached her soon after, saying he would not talk to her unless she went inside and apologized to his staff. She told Cox she could not do that, as she believed she had not committed any action worth apologizing for. .The ruling said Cox lost his temper and began screaming at her. It said the situation escalated where he demanded she leave the property and called her a squaw. .Cunningham said she was traumatized by being called a squaw, so she kicked Cox in the butt. She said she regretted her actions and knew what she did was wrong. .An RCMP officer visited her soon after arriving home, informing her Cox would not be pressing charges. She was banned from going to Bim’s in the future. .Oshionebo said Bim’s never contested the complaint or disputed the affidavit filed. He said the HRTA needs to consider if there was a reasonable justification for the discrimination occurring in the complaint. .The member went on to say after considering the evidence in the complaint, he finds “no reasonable justification for the respondent’s discriminatory conduct.”.“Consequently, I find that the respondent discriminated against the complainant based on her race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and gender,” he said. .Bim’s bookkeeper Ashley, who declined to give her last name for fear of retaliation, said the location was never informed of the trial. .“We have indigenous employees that work here and multiple friends,” said Ashley. .“We live in a community that’s surrounded by reserves.” .Ashley said for Cox to make such a comment would be bizarre. She said the HRTA held a mediation hearing, but never informed Bim’s of the trial. .The bookkeeper said it “took her side and granted her $15,000, so we didn’t get a chance to explain again what happened.” She admitted Cunningham was unsatisfied with the car wash, but she went inside the building and intimidated staff. .The HRTA referred the Western Standard to its interim decision from June. .“The respondent has failed to communicate with the Tribunal to advance the Complaint,” said Alberta Chief of the Commission and Tribunals Kathryn Oviatt. .“As a result, the Tribunal issued a case management direction ordering it to provide a name and contact information for a representative and their availability to participate in a Tribunal Dispute Resolution.” .The decision said the respondent did not respond to or comply with the order. Section 20.3 of the Alberta Human Rights Commission Bylaws permits the HRTA to determine a complaint without further notice to a party if it cannot be contacted through reasonable efforts..Cunningham referred the Western Standard to a Facebook post she made about the incident. .“I am not proud of my reaction,” she said. “It has been a long two years.”
