An Ontario judge has struck down a deceased doctor’s attempt to set up university scholarships exclusively for white, single and heterosexual students, ruling the unusual stipulations clash with “public policy.”

Dr. Victor Priebe’s trustee should ignore the discriminatory directions his will set out for the proposed bursary, said the Superior Court of Justice decision.

“Although it is not expressly stated by Dr. Priebe that he subscribed to white supremacist, homophobic and misogynistic views … (the will’s statements) leave no doubt as to Dr. Priebe’s views,” said Justice Alissa Mitchell.

Her decision invoked a little-known legal principle — stemming from an 80-year-old Supreme Court of Canada judgment — that allows courts to quash people’s final wishes if they clearly offend the interests of the state.

A 2014 ruling similarly halted a New Brunswick man’s bequest of $200,000 to an American neo-Nazi group, while a 2009 Nova Scotia judgment blocked a will that said the deceased’s property could be sold only to Anglicans or Presbyterians.

But judges can curb Canadians’ freedom to direct their financial legacy only when the transgression is blatant, said Laura Cardiff, a Toronto lawyer who specializes in estate cases.

“People are allowed to be eccentric,” she said. “It’s fairly stringent, these requirements. It’s the ‘safety’ of the state that (has to be) at risk, and it’s a universally recognized risk, not just that a few people might disagree with what this person is doing.”

Royal Trust Corp., the trustee, had asked the court for direction on whether it had to follow Priebe’s instructions. Its lawyer did not comment on the decision.

Ontario’s Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee had intervened to urge that the will’s contentious parts be removed. One of the office’s roles is to oversee charitable gifts, and it’s well-established that those gifts cannot violate the Ontario Human Rights Code, said Brendan Crawley, a spokesman.

Priebe died a year ago at age 83, 20 years after he had retired as a radiologist at Windsor’s Hotel Dieu Hosptial. He was also a partner in Windsor Radiological Associates.

Priebe’s will asked the trustee to set up bursaries for students planning studies in science, including medicine, genetics, biology, chemistry, physics and pharmacology.

It said one should be directed to “Caucasian (white), male, single, heterosexual students,” while the other should be reserved for a “hard-working, single Caucasian white girl who is not feminist or lesbian.”

Administrators of the scholarship should make sure yearly that the students remained single, said the will.

There were other odd stipulations, too, such as that the male bursary should not go to anyone who plays inter-collegiate sports, and that the recipient should ideally demonstrate “they are not afraid of hard manual work in their selection of summer employment.”

In ruling last week that those specifications contravened public policy, Justice Mitchell cited a 1990 case where a bequeathed scholarship available only to white people of British origin was successfully challenged as discriminatory.

But Priebe may have gotten the last word. Another provision in his will said the bursaries would be cancelled if a court voided the controversial provisions.

One long-time acquaintance said she was “a little bit surprised” at the bigotry in his final testament.

“But he had a rather unique personality,” said the acquaintance, who asked not to be quoted by name because of the “awkward” situation. “He certainly was a strong-minded individual.”

Priebe’s obituary in the Windsor Star makes no mention of any spouse or children, saying he was predeceased by his parents and sister, had founded a photography club and enjoyed spending time in local public libraries.

One of his cousins said in a brief email exchange that she had only met Priebe once, in 1960 at her own father’s funeral, and exchanged the odd Christmas card.

“I don’t know anything about him, his friends or acquaintances,” she said.

The underlying case law that doomed Priebe’s posthumous plans dates from 1938, when the Supreme Court was asked to rule on a will that set up a sort of “baby derby,” bequeathing money to the woman who had the most babies within a certain period of time. The judges approved that idea, but said courts could step in when provisions were clearly offensive to public interests, said Ms. Cardiff.