Wasn't it the Founders wishes that the Chairman of the Control Trust to represent shareholders? If so, then I would say that the company move to remove Edward as Chairman of Rogers without Shareholders approval (vote) is invalid if the company is saying that removal of other board members is invalid without shareholder approval.
Company and board members basically went against 97% of the shareholders in their attempt to remove Edward as Chairman of Rogers. As such, it's not Edward that went against the founders wishes, but the company and mother and others when they tried to remove Edwards as Chairman.
Nothing Wrong with Edward seeking to replace the CEO. Nothing Wrong with Board members Voting Edwards motion down. That's one of the jobs Board members are tasked to do!!!
Where the "problem" started was when the mother and others "removed" the Chairman, who represents 97% of the votes!!!!
All just my opinion/view/thinking/guessing/understanding