Is a restrictive covenant with respect to race, race, blood, and race void for uncertainty?

In Noble and Wolf v. Alley, 1950 CanLII 13 (SCC), [1951] S.C.R. 64 at 74, Estey J. held that the restrictive covenant in question was void for uncertainty. He stated: These authorities support the view that the language of a restrictive covenant must set forth clearly and distinctly the intent of the parties. The general language in clause (f), with great respect to those learned judges who hold a contrary view, fails to indicate the intention of the parties as to the amount or degree of the prohibited race or blood that might be permitted. It must, therefore, upon the authorities, be held void for uncertainty.