to all visitors to this site who either logged directly into this site or who by happenstance arrived by serendipity.
Feel free to leave your comment at my email email@example.com
For the Record:
Everything that I have to say is a personal expression of my "thoughts, beliefs and \or opinions". Readers may recognize this as fundamental, CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, "including press and other media of communication". CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 Sc.2(b)"
This site and the contents of this site are entirely legitimized by two other sections of the Charter - Sc. 7 and Sc. 11(d).
You be the Judge
Daughter v Father
www.you-be-the-judge.com is designed to be both educational and informative. It has been created to expose the legal harassment that George Fraser is experiencing after he exercised his Charter
Sc. 2(b) "freedom of expression", a fundamental freedom right, on another web site, www.abandonedandbetrayed.com, that he owns.
David Siville, KPA Lawyers, is representing the plaintiff, Kimberly Gillespie
George Fraser, the defendant, is representing himself
This web site is designed to provide full public disclosure of the ongoing tort action by the plaintiff, Kimberly Gillespie; so that, the readers can be the judge as to the legitimacy of the plaintiff's claims and to whether this ill-conceived tort action constitutes legal harassment.
Readers should be fully aware that all court documents appearing on this site are publically available from the Superior Court of Justice at Kingston Ontario.
The Court File Number is CV-22-00000076-0000
All legal correspondence that I have received from the plaintiff's counsel, KPA Lawyers, has been included to give contextual background to the legal harassment of my Charter "freedom of expression".
I am an open book, regarding this matter; nothing is considered to be either private or confidential.
The publication of this site, www.you-be-the-judge.com, goes beyond exercising my Charter Sc. 2(b) "freedom of expression" rights. This is because it involves another deeply embedded principle in our common law tradition and that is the 'open court' principle.
'Open court' means members of the public have a right to receive information pertaining to all judicial proceedings, including the pretrial stage, subject to overriding public interests (Edmonton Journal (1989), supra; Re Vancouver Sun,  2 S.C.R. 332 at paragraph 27; Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada,  1 S.C.R. 721).
The 'open court' principle is connected to freedom of the press, as the media are an important means by which the public receives information.
My publicist is seeking to have the press cover this bogus harassment tort. No promotional postcards this time but rather, there will be direct promotion to the media by all the usual means.
I would remind the readers, that the 'open court' principle under section 2(b) is not limited to criminal proceedings as the Supreme Court has also relied upon the principle in the civil context (Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance),  2 S.C.R. 522 at paragraph 36; Edmonton Journal (1989}, supra at paragraphs 5-11 and 55-63}.
Tutorial on Tort Law
Tutorial on Tort Law As It Applies To The Charter:
This civil suit by Kimberly Gillespie is legal harassment under the basic principles of tort law.
This is because 'duty of care' is the central tenet of negligence determination without which no liability can flow, no matter how awful, in the plaintiff's mind, the alleged conduct of the tortfeasor.
There is no 'duty of care' or 'standard care' and / or 'wrongful act' on an individual's Charter Sc. 2(b) "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression including freedom of the press or other media of communications" that in this the 21st Century includes internet social media platforms.
The SCC has been unwilling to place obligations or reciprocity on the Charter's Sc. 2(b) "freedom of expression". The protection of "freedom of expression" is premised upon fundamental principles and values that promote the search for and the attainment of truth and the opportunity for individual self-fulfillment through expression in reference to Irwin Toy Ltd. v Quebec (AG)  and Ford v Quebec .
Further, the SCC has interpreted "freedom of expression" in a "large and liberal" orientation to Charter guarantees to ensure that all manner of expressive activities qualify for constitutional protection - no matter how offensive, unpopular or disturbing cannot deprive it of Sc. 2(b) "freedom of expression" in reference to R v Zundel .
The actors in this vindictive harrassment lawsuit
The actors in this vindictive harrassment lawsuit:
Daughter v Father
What precipitated this harassment tort
What precipitated this harassment tort?
For those visitors to this site, if you have not already done so, I would recommend that you take a side trip and visit
This web site is what precipitated the Kim Gillespie legal action.
On this site, George Fraser has published his story; the story of 'What happened to George and Judy?'. It is a story of inconvenient truth because it is an unabridged, raw uncensored story as to why Judy Fraser was murdered by George Fraser. They had been married for 47 years and BFFs for SO years.
On June 3, 2015, George Fraser was fairly convicted of 2nd Degree Murder "not planned and not intended". He never denied.
Judy Fraser's murder was never a 'Who done it?' but rather 'Why did it happen?'
Yes, Judy Fraser was murdered and George Fraser is the confessed murderer; but, 'What was behind those stabbing thrusts that caused so much pain and damage when only months earlier he had been massaging and caressing those same areas where he inflicted so much pain and damage?'
The story of 'What happened to George and Judy?' gives the reader a perspective on:
abandonment and betrayal of Shakespearian proportions that will ring through eternity
a convoluted crime of passion, where that last day George loved his cottage of 28 years more than he loved Judy his BFF of 50 years and his wife of 47 years, and
a multi-faceted story of a profoundly dysfunctional Fraser family. The circumstances leading up to Judy Fraser's death were a family affair.
lies and deceit to mask their principle role in the 'legal separation' of George and Judy are exposed. By any logical, objective analysis, the evidence is clear - our daughter's, Kimberly Gillespie, dysfunction sabotaged our marriage
a story of contrived denial as 'the kicker' becomes 'the driver' and then morphs into 'the walker', and there is even
perjury on the witness stand
KPA letter threatening legal action of January 17, 2022
KPA letter threatening legal action of January 17, 2022 (5 Page)
George Fraser response letter of February 2, 2022
George Fraser response letter of February 2, 2022 (1 Page)
Statement of Claim received March 18, 2022
Statement of Claim received March 18, 2022 (20 Page)
Kimberly Gillespie has a history
False allegations refer to situations where an alleged victim generates deceptive claims of being harmed or experiencing trauma for a variety of motivations i.e. revenge, attention & compensation.
In reference to this tort action by Kimberly Gillespie, all those motivations revenge, attention & compensation are in play.
As you will read in www.abandonedandbetrayed.com, my daughter Kimberly Gillespie is truth challenged. Some sections to go back and review:
Kimberly Gillespie has a Pinocchio nose due to her history of making false allegation!
Court Ordered Psychiatric Examination
It is to be expected, that if this bogus tort action continues, the defendant, George Fraser, will request the Court for an independent psychological assessment of Kimberly Gillespie. That Court ordered psychological assessment will become part of the Court documents related to this case.
All Court documents related to this case are part of the public record. Accordingly, the Court ordered psychological assessment for my daughter would be published on this web site www.you-be-the-judge.com; so that, readers can have full and complete information.
Where claimants are motivated by revenge, attention & compensation, it is to be expected that they would be making fake and inflated claims of distress. | believe that an independent psychological assessment of Kimberly Gillespie will confirm my suspicions of deception to be true both in their content and in symptoms.
Statement of Defense dated April 4, 2022
Statement of Defense dated April 4, 2022 (16 Page)
Response to Statement of Defense April 25,2022
Response to Statement of Defense April 25,2022 (4 Page)
Everybody has Charter Rights and Freedoms
It is hypocritical for the plaintiff, Kimberly Gillespie, to think that the freedom to express one’s thoughts, beliefs and opinions is a one-way street.
This is an egregious example where Kimberly Gillespie exercised her “freedom of expression” rights never imagining that “killer Dad” would be able to respond by telling the true story of ‘What happened to George and Judy’.
This is never Karma!
You have to love it!
The Best for Last
The Best for Last ... What's the Point
A central tenet of civil suits for damages is that there must be reasonable expectation that the defendant can pay the amount claimed. I could never pay the ridiculous amount of damages that the plaintiff is claiming; so, Why would Kim Gillespie initiate legal action under these circumstances?
Answer --- Harassment.
It’s obvious that that Kimberly Gillespie is being sucked along by her lawyers failure to understand or she is just legally naive but probably both ... for a failure to understand that even if she gets lucky and obtains some token judgement against George Fraser she would have no chance of collecting a nickel.
This is because under section 7 of the Wages Act pension payments cannot be garnished, even if the funds have been deposited into an account at a financial institution.
OBTW, George's income is exclusively from pension payments.