Mr/Mrs whoa,

Again, as I have said, one can not appreciate the full picture of any concept by only having a part of the whole. This decision is merely a part of a whole picture, there are parts of any scenario, that once broken down, may give the wrong impression of the whole. I see the focus of the case was narrowed to emphasize on the circular technicalities, where this was done, it disallowed a decision on any morality or ethical portion entering the picture. The case focused on the right of the company in its actions and failed to consider the rights of many. The decision says that Lori acted fairly in operating under the laws of the company, but this is where the real problem lies, that didn,t surface because it was cut off by a narrowed focus. The problem with our rights still exists and this decision clearly shows where the power lies in this aspect of our society, in the hands of few. The biggest problem here was never addressed, the rights of the shareholders.

You ask the question; "sculpin - do you think this decision will still change society?"

My answer is that it is a WAKE UP CALL to many and yes it is a step in the change of society. It blatantly shows, that through current law, peoples rights are easily distinguished and that the way laws are written, they are restricted to ever entering the picture of law. All we have here now, is an up to date ruling that virtually SHOWS us how your rights are easily taken away by the instrument of law. IMO, I believe the message was very clear, that 90% wanted change of management, and that it didn,t matter who the alternative choice of nominees were, the shareholders minds were made, they wanted current management out at all costs. If the judge would have asked the 90% shareholders if they felt mislead by the dissident circular, the answer would have been no. The Judge then, would have had a democratic opinion on what was considered misrepresentation, and his decision would have had to be different to reflect the democratic opinion. All rights of the shareholders were excluded from his decision, making one wonder, if you have rights, and they are not considered, do you really have any rights? The decision on if management stays or not, boiled down to the opinion of one man, and not the opinion of the majority interest. The Judge agreed with the law rather than try to change it to reflect the consideration of rights. The Judge had the opportunity to address the real problem, but chose to stay within the restricted confines of law instead of effecting change.

I would like to see a Canadian wide vote held today asking the question; " Do you think it is right for one person to make a decision for thousands without imput from the thousands?"

IMO