Ted Rogers didn't give the company to his Wife, he gave control to the Control Trust and had the Chairman represent the control trust as I understand.
So, Edward basically represents the Control Trust, which represents 97% of the controling votes.
I makes sense to me that TED would not want the Chairman to do what ever he/she wants, as such there are other board members to keep the Chairman in Check. So if ever the board goes against the Chairman, the Chairman would require/seek shareholders vote to see if he/she can get his way. As such, if Edward really wants to remove the CEO and other board members, it makes sense a shareholder's vote should be required if he loses support of the board, which would be moot if indeed 97% of shareholders gave resolution to do so.
It makes no sense to me that Edward can be remove as Chairman of Rogers without either Shareholders approval or from Edwards himself. On the other hand, Edward replacing board members with resolution of 97% of the voting shareholders makes sense to me if indeed he was given such direction by 97% of the votes. An actual "vote" would be moot... just silly.... 97% already basically voted.
All just my opinion/view/thinking/understanding/guessing