http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/LOC/freeside/--%20B%20--/Business%20Corporations%20Act%20SBC%202002%20c.%2057/00_Act/02057_05.xml

No interference with class or series rights without consent

61 A right or special right attached to issued shares must not be prejudiced or interfered with under this Act or under the memorandum, notice of articles or articles unless the shareholders holding shares of the class or series of shares to which the right or special right is attached consent by a special separate resolution of those shareholders.

Here is the definition of "prejudice" for clarification and depiction;

So, as you can see what the above LAW states,and which may interpreted as, the Chair/CEO of SLI, could not detach our rights from those 91% votes at the 2012 AGM, WITHOUT OUR CONSENT. The action taken by the Chair, clearly INTERFERRED with the voting process and PREJUDICED our shares/rights, without our consent. By law, the chair had to call another meeting/vote, to allow the right attached to those votes, not to be compromised.

As per the comment in the excerpt below, it appears;

"Justice Steeves held that there is no equivalent provision in the BCBCA to section 107 of the OBCA which grants the Court broad discretion in “determining any controversy” regarding an election."

http://www.canadiansecuritieslitigation.com/tag/st-elias-mines-ltd

I believe Justice Steeves DID HAVE A REMEDY FOR "determining any controversy" by simply enforcing Section 61 above, which would have resulted in a new AGM/vote. And, it could perhaps be well argued that Justice Steeves non recognition of Section 61, resulted in "prejudiced or interfered with", because we were denied an inclusive right to consent to leave our votes stand on the dissident proxy or revote.

I will also add here that the Justice (dont know his name) , that declared 2 of the proposed dissident nominees invalid because of the Advance Notice Policy, could not have made that determination, because the instrument, the policy, was never ratified by shareholders that would have allowed it to be provisioned into the company,s Articles and become effective.

We may have also been denied the right to vote on the White Proxy that time as well, if it was not clearly stated in Managements Circular at the time, THAT WE COULD VOTE BOTH, THE GREEN AND THE WHITE PROXY. But you would think that a Judge had explored and ascertained that the option was presented clearly, so without checking, my opinion on this paragraph, may possibly hold no merit. I am too tired to dig further tonight to see if it was clearly written in the White Proxy.

The above is my interpretation of the law, whats yours?