@*@ Header
An Ontario judge rules against the provisions in a man’s will as being contrary to public policies.

An Ontario judge rules against the provisions in a man’s will as being contrary to public policies.

Judge overrules last will-“contrary to public policy”

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestEmailPrint

When is a last will and testament not valid? A judge in the Superior Court of Ontario has ruled that a trustee is not required to carry out the last wishes when it runs contrary to public policy.

In this latest case, the Royal Bank of Canada as trustee for the late Dr Victor Priebe, who died in January 2015, had asked the court whether it was required to carry out provisions in his will.

Part of the will set up university student bursaries for singly white heterosexual men and women, who were also not afraid of “hard manual work”.

To provide funds, from time to time and in the discretion of my Trustee for awards or bursaries to Caucasian (white) male, single, heterosexual students in scientific studies, including medicine, genetics, biology, chemistry, physics and those going into medical pharmacology research…..

…. to similarly provide funds for an award to be known as the Ellen O’Donnel Priebe Memorial Award in the discretion of my trustee, under the same terms as the awards above, except this award is to go to a hard-working, single, Caucasian white girl who is not a feminist or lesbian, with special consideration, if she is an immigrant, but not necessarily a recent one. This award is for someone going into a field the scientific study (not medicine) on the terms outlined above for the male applicants

the 1938 Stork Derby led to a book and a 2002 movie. The Supreme Court of Canada had ruled the lawyer’s will was valid but added that courts could intervene when provisions were against public interest. that provision has been used in cases since
The 1938 “Stork Derby” led to a book and a 2002 movie. The Supreme Court of Canada had ruled the lawyer’s will was valid but added that courts could intervene when provisions were against public interest. That provision has been used in cases since

 Judge Alissa Mitchell said the provisions left no doubt that Dr Priebe intended to discriminate based on race, sexual orientation and marital status, adding, “I have no hesitation in declaring the qualifications relating to race, marital status, and sexual orientation and, in the case of female candidates[6], philosophical ideology, in paragraph 3(d)(ii)(E) of the Will void as being contrary to public policy.  Although it is not expressly stated by Dr. Priebe that he subscribed to white supremacist, homophobic and misogynistic views as was the case in the indenture under consideration in Canada Trust Co., the stated qualifications in paragraph 3(d)(ii)(E) leave no doubt as to Dr. Priebe’s views and his intention to discriminate on these grounds

Such cases are rare as executors will usually try to dissuade people from putting such unusual provisions in their wills that are likely to lead to litigation. It is however not unique.

The Canadian Press cites Laura Cardiff, a Toronto lawyer who specializes in estate cases as saying the underlying case that stopped Priebe’s will dates back to 1938 in Canada when a will offered money to the woman who had the most babies. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled the “baby derby” (also Stork Derby)  was approved but the courts could step in when provisions were clearly offensive to public interest.

In 1990, a similar case involved a scholarship to white people of British origin which was overturned as being discriminatory.

Last year in Ontario the will of Jamaican-born Rector Emanuel Spence was successfully challenged. He had disinherited his daughter because she had a child with a white man. The judge overturned the will ruling that Spence’s decision was “racist” and as such “contravened public policy”.

And in 2014, and on appeal in 2015, a New Brunswick man’s will was successfully challenged by his daughter. Robert McCorkill had willed his coin and artifact collection worth $250,000 to an American white supremacist organization called the National Alliance.

In his 2014 ruling, upheld on appeal, the  Court of Queen’s Bench judge had said the National Alliance written materials were “hate propaganda” which was both illegal in Canada and contrary to public policy and as such he voided the donation.

additional information-sources

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Lifestyle, Society

Do you want to report an error or a typo? Click here!

@*@ Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

Note: By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that Radio Canada International has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Radio Canada International does not endorse any of the views posted. Your comments will be pre-moderated and published if they meet netiquette guidelines.

Netiquette »

When you express your personal opinion in an online forum, you must be as courteous as if you were speaking with someone face-to-face. Insults and personal attacks will not be tolerated. To disagree with an opinion, an idea or an event is one thing, but to show disrespect for other people is quite another. Great minds don’t always think alike—and that’s precisely what makes online dialogue so interesting and valuable.

Netiquette is the set of rules of conduct governing how you should behave when communicating via the Internet. Before you post a message to a blog or forum, it’s important to read and understand these rules. Otherwise, you may be banned from posting.

  1. RCInet.ca’s online forums are not anonymous. Users must register, and give their full name and place of residence, which are displayed alongside each of their comments. RCInet.ca reserves the right not to publish comments if there is any doubt as to the identity of their author.
  2. Assuming the identity of another person with intent to mislead or cause harm is a serious infraction that may result in the offender being banned.
  3. RCInet.ca’s online forums are open to everyone, without regard to age, ethnic origin, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
  4. Comments that are defamatory, hateful, racist, xenophobic, sexist, or that disparage an ethnic origin, religious affiliation or age group will not be published.
  5. In online speak, writing in ALL CAPS is considered yelling, and may be interpreted as aggressive behaviour, which is unpleasant for the people reading. Any message containing one or more words in all caps (except for initialisms and acronyms) will be rejected, as will any message containing one or more words in bold, italic or underlined characters.
  6. Use of vulgar, obscene or objectionable language is prohibited. Forums are public places and your comments could offend some users. People who use inappropriate language will be banned.
  7. Mutual respect is essential among users. Insulting, threatening or harassing another user is prohibited. You can express your disagreement with an idea without attacking anyone.
  8. Exchanging arguments and opposing views is a key component of healthy debate, but it should not turn into a dialogue or private discussion between two users who address each other without regard for the other participants. Messages of this type will not be posted.
  9. Radio Canada International publishes contents in five languages. The language used in the forums has to be the same as the contents we publish. The usage of other languages, with the exception of some words, is forbidden. Messages that are off-topic will not be published.
  10. Making repetitive posts disrupts the flow of discussions and will not be tolerated.
  11. Adding images or any other type of file to comments is forbidden. Including hyperlinks to other websites is allowed, as long as they comply with netiquette. Radio Canada International  is in no way responsible for the content of such sites, however.
  12. Copying and pasting text written by someone else, even if you credit the author, is unacceptable if that text makes up the majority of your comment.
  13. Posting any type of advertising or call to action, in any form, to Radio Canada International  forums is prohibited.
  14. All comments and other types of content are moderated before publication. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to refuse any comment for publication.
  15. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to close a forum at any time, without notice.
  16. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to amend this code of conduct (netiquette) at any time, without notice.
  17. By participating in its online forums, you allow Radio Canada International to publish your comments on the web for an indefinite time. This also implies that these messages will be indexed by Internet search engines.
  18. Radio Canada International has no obligation to remove your messages from the web if one day you request it. We invite you to carefully consider your comments and the consequences of their posting.

*