I think if you connect some dots and look at some dates, it may appear an outcome derived from shareholders not receiving their proxy materials, was in managements favour. It appears the Circular was dated Feb 5th, but didn,t get posted on SEDAR until around Mar 5, which only legally gave 22 days for the proxy material to reach shareholders. Why wasn,t the Circular posted on Feb 5th when it was dated, that would have enabled the transfer agent to mail and notify other holding parties a month and 22 days in advance of the AGM, instead of the 22 days? Had the proxy materials been mailed a month earlier, perhaps shareholders all would have received their voting material? Had all been able to vote, perhaps present management would have had got in by only 1% of the votes, rather than 3-5% of the votes? LOL, I guess it doesn,t matter, anything over 90% is a clear majority, while 5% is definitely a minority.

The majority voting policy request was also ignored which is in shareholders favour as one of the most blatant displays of Director entrenchment ever,lol.

There are also some more interesting relations to the proxy materials, one being that boxes were unchecked on account agreements that entitled shareholders to receive their company info and/or proxy material. This action allowed for the institutions to vote your shares for whoever the institution wanted, which is usually FOR management. It is possible that all votes that management received at the last AGM were derived from votes just like this, where your institution voted your shares for you, and voted for current management.