The Globe and Mail reports in its Saturday edition Barrick in March disclosed it had raised chairman John Thornton's pay last year by 36 per cent to $12.6-million (U.S.) and exempted him from the defined performance targets it uses for other executives' pay, all while Barrick lost $3-billion (U.S.) and its share price tanked in 2014. The Globe's Janet McFarland writes it was an incendiary combination and shareholders responded with an overwhelming "No" in the company's say-on-pay executive compensation vote in May. As say-on-pay voting becomes more established in Canada, it is clear investors are taking a far tougher approach in targeted cases. Clearer patterns are beginning to emerge about what is most likely to result in an overwhelmingly negative vote. Major shareholders publish lengthy and influential proxy voting guidelines, but fund managers say they are most likely to vote "No" on a relatively short list of things that cover their biggest concerns: when executive pay does not align with performance, when big discretionary payments or bonuses do not fit within the normal compensation plan features, and when there is a lack of response to prior low votes on pay. Mr. Thornton's pay ticked most of the boxes.