Corporate UpdateFebruary 2017

Forward-Looking Statements

2

Cautionary Statement

This presentation contains certain information that constitutes “forward-looking information” and “forward-looking statements” as defined under Canadian and U.S. securities laws. All statements inthis presentation, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements. The words “expect”, “believe”, “anticipate”, “contemplate”, “may”, “could”, “will”, “intend”, “estimate”,“forecast”, “target”, “budget”, “schedule” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this presentation include, without limitation, information as toour strategy, projected gold production from the Young-Davidson, Hemlo – Williams, Eagle River, Fosterville and Stawell mines, which are not owned by the Company, project timelines, the potentialnet smelter return royalty on future production from the Kemess Underground mine, resource and reserve estimates, projected production and costs of the Kemess Underground mine, otherstatements that express our expectations or estimates of future performance, value growth, value creation and shareholder returns, the success of exploration activities, mineral inventory includingthe Company’s ability to delineate additional resources and reserves as a result of such programs, mineral reserves and mineral resources and anticipated grades, exploration expenditures, costs andtiming of any future development, costs and timing of future exploration , the presence of and continuity of metals at Kemess East at modeled grades, as well as expectations relating to the KiskaMetals acquisition and Kiska’s assets.

Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of factors and assumptions that, while considered reasonable by management at the time of making such statements, are inherentlysubject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. Known and unknown factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in theforward-looking statements. Such factors and assumptions underlying the forward-looking statements in this presentation include, but are not limited to: changes to current estimates of mineralreserves and resources; fluctuations in the price of gold and copper; changes in foreign exchange rates (particularly the Canadian dollar and U.S. dollar); performance of the Young-Davidson, Hemlo –Williams, Eagle River, Fosterville and Stawell mines, which may impact the future cash flows associated with the Company’s royalty holdings; the impact of inflation; employee relations; litigation;uncertainty with the Company’s ability to secure capital to execute its business plans; the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development, including the risks of obtaining necessarylicenses, permits, authorizations and/or approvals from the appropriate regulatory authorities for the Kemess Underground project; contests over title to properties; changes in national and localgovernment legislation in Canada and other jurisdictions in which the Company does or may carry on business in the future; risk of loss due to sabotage and civil disturbances; the impact of globalliquidity and credit availability and the values of assets and liabilities based on projected future cash flows; as well as business opportunities that may be pursued by the Company.

Actual results and developments are likely to differ, and may differ materially, from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation. Such statements arebased on a number of assumptions, including those noted elsewhere in this document, which may prove to be incorrect. Readers are cautioned that forward-looking statements are not guarantees offuture performance. All of the forward-looking statements made in this presentation are qualified by these cautionary statements.

There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements or information will prove to be accurate, accordingly, investors should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements orinformation contained herein. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events orotherwise, except as required by applicable law.

Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Measured, Indicated and Inferred Resources

This presentation uses the terms "measured", "indicated" and "inferred” resources. We advise investors that while those terms are recognized and required by Canadian regulations, the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission does not recognize them. “Inferred resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot beassumed that all or any part of an inferred resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian rules, estimates of inferred mineral resources may not form the basis of feasibility orother economic studies. United States investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of measured or indicated mineral resources will ever be converted into mineral reserves. United Statesinvestors are also cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource exists, or is economically or legally mineable.

Qualified Person as Defined by National Instrument 43-101

John Fitzgerald, Chief Operating Officer for AuRico Metals Inc. has reviewed and approved the scientific and technical information contained within this presentation. Mr. Fitzgerald is a “QualifiedPerson” as defined by National Instrument 43-101.

Investment Case

3

100% owned, advanced-stage Kemess Au/Cu project in BC –with C$1B of infrastructure in place – 12Moz + AuE

Portfolio of high quality producing gold royalties (‘17E royalty revenue of US$8.0 – US$8.4M)

Strong balance sheet (C$15M cash) with no debt

Numerous upcoming catalysts including Kemess UG EA (Q1), Kemess East update (Q2), royalty updates & acquisitions

Unique risk – reward dynamic through combination of stand-out development project with royalties

Compelling valuation

Royalty Portfolio Kemess Gold – Copper Project

Young-Davidson (1.5%) 2017 prod’n guidance 18 – 24%

Fosterville (2%) record Q4/16prod’n & exceptional drill results (1,429 g/t over 15m)

Hemlo (0.25%) significant exploration activity ongoing

Eagle River (0.5%) 2017 prod’n guidance 12% - 22%

Kiska acquisition to add 6 royalties + 6 wholly owned projects

2017 Resource (Moz AuE1):

Positive feasibility study:

Kemess East updated rsc: 250% increase in indicated tonnes in higher grade core

Expect decision on EA certificate ~ end of Q1/17

3.3 6.7 2.3

Recent Developments Both Sides of Business Becoming More Valuable

4

After-tax NPV (5%)C$421M

P&P M&I Inferred

(Reserves Only)

IRR of 15.4%

Capital Structure (TSX – AMI)

Share Price (as of Feb. 14, 2017) C$1.16

Shares Outstanding 150M

Market Capitalization C$174M

Cash (as of Dec. 31, 2016) C$15M

No Debt / Available credit facility of US$15M

Management Team

Chris Richter President & CEO

John Fitzgerald Chief Operating Officer

Chris Rockingham Vice President, Development

David Flahr Vice President, Finance

John Miniotis Vice President, Corporate Development

Harold Bent Director, Environment

Board of Directors

Richard Colterjohn (Chair) Scott Perry

John McCluskey Anne Day

Anthony Garson Janice Stairs

Joseph Spiteri Chris Richter

Major Shareholders2

Alamos Gold 10%

Van Eck Associates 9%

Donald Smith & Company 8%

Tocqueville Asset Management 6%

AMI Management & Directors 3% 5

Market Overview

Analyst Coverage & Target Prices

Mackie Research (Ryan Hanley) C$1.80

Paradigm Capital (Lauren McConnell) C$1.70

Macquarie (Michael Siperco) C$1.70

National Bank (Shane Nagle) C$1.50

Red Cloud

AMI – Portfolio of Assets

Wholly-owned projects with potential for royalties

Canada

Australia

Kemess (100%)

Young-Davidson (1.5% NSR)

Stawell (1% NSR)

Fosterville(2% NSR)

Non-Producing Royalty

Leviathan (1% NSR)

Forest Kerr (1.33% NSR on RDN)

Hemlo – David Bell (1.5% NSR)

Eagle River (0.5% NSR)

Producing Royalty

GJ (1% NSR) andGJ Northern Block (0.5%)

East Timmins (0.5% NSR)

Boulevard (1% NSR )

Goodpaster (1% NSR )

Mt. Dunn (2% NSR)

Cumobabi (0.5% NSR)

Hilltop (100%)

Red Lake & Madsen Area (1% NSR)

Copper Joe (option)

Chuchi (100%)

Grizzly (100%)

Kliyul (100%)

Williams (100%)

Redton (100%)

USA

Mexico

Hemlo – Williams (0.25% NSR)

Ontario

Australia

Nevada & Mexico

British Columbia

Alaska & Yukon

Note: Properties shown in italics and not bolded will be acquired as part of Kiska transaction which is expected to close in March

Kemess (100% Owned) Overview

7

Past Present Future

Kemess South (Production: 1998 – 2011)

C$1 Billion of Infrastructure on Care and Maintenance

Kemess Underground (KUG) & Kemess East (KE)

3Mozof Gold

Produced(at 0.6 g/t)

750Mlbsof Copper Produced (at 0.2%)

KUG Feasibility Update

KE Resource Update

Environmental Assessment draft report and conditions completed

Successful 2016 KE drilling, including 628m at 0.53g/t Au and 0.41% Cu (0.74% CuE)1

Resource update announced in January

(4.6Moz AuE1)

3,341

6,663

2,264

KUG + KE: AuE Ounces ('000)

P&P Indicated Inferred

Kemess UG – Feasibility Study Update

8

Unique Opportunity

Few other big / near-term development opportunities in Canada… and Kemessbenefits from C$1bn of infrastructure in place

Robust Economics

After-tax NPV5% of C$421M and IRR of +15% (assuming

$1,250/oz Au, $3.00/lb Cu and C$/US$ of 0.75)

Significant Upside

Large (246Mt) M&I resource (including 107Mt of reserves) situated vertical to the extraction level (of the planned KUG panel cave)

Potential further upside from Kemess East (including high grade core) – which remains open in several directions

K UGK EastKUG K. East

Kemess UG: Production and Costs

9

Big Production at Low Cost

Annual production of 207Koz AuE over LOM (12 years)1

238Koz AuE annually for first 5 years

Total LOM cash costs of US$639 and AISC of US$718 per AuE

AISC of US$682/oz over first 5 years

Payback of 3.3 years

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Annual Gold Equivalent Production vs. USD AISC

Gold Equivalent Production AISC(USD)

$/oz Ounces

10

Kemess UG: Capex Breakdown

Capex(US$ millions)

To First Production

Additional to Commercial Prod’n Total %

Mine 154 46 200 39%

Mill 23 6 29 6%

Access Corridor 27 - 27 5%

Conveyor 30 - 30 6%

UG Electrical & Ventilation

22 - 22 4%

Owner’s Costs, G&A, and Other

25 1 26 5%

Capitalized Op. Costs 108 71 179 35%

Pre-Commercial Revenue

- (64) (64)

Total 393 59 452

Kemess benefits from extensive infrastructure in place including processing facility, grid power, access road, camp, admin and maintenance facilities, airstrip, etc.

UG development capex at less risk of overspend given it’s paid on $/m basis

Opportunity to reduce capex through equipment leasing (C$86M)

87% of capital expenditures are C$ denominated

Capex is heavily weighted to final 2 years prior to commercial production

Kemess UG + Kemess East Reserves and Resources (all categories) of +12Moz AuE

Kemess East – Higher Grade Discovery

11

Kemess East Indicated Resources of 1.7Moz Au & 1B

lbs Cu

Completed successful 2016 drilling program with

highlight holes including:• #13: 628m of 0.53 g/t Au, 0.41% Cu• #12: 549m of 0.55 g/t Au, 0.41% Cu• #9: 504m of 0.52 g/t Au, 0.36% Cu

Section and Plan Views of Kemess East Deposit (grid squares are 200m by 200m)

~82Mt in high grade (potassicstrong) core with Cu grade

60% higher and Au grade 8% higher than KUG Reserves

Indicated tonnes in high grade core increased by 250%

Kemess Financing Alternatives

KemessAdvantages

Attractive economics

“2/3rds built” (~C$1B of infrastructure)

“Low risk” capex (mostly UG dev’t)

Proven as past producer (‘98 – ’11)

Advanced stage

~55/45 Au/Cu split

BC government very supportive

Fully unencumbered

Clean concentrate

12

Smelter (offtake-linked) Financing

Joint Venture / Earn-in

Project Financing

Royalties Private Equity

Existing Royalty Portfolio Overview

13

Royalty Mineral Inventory (years)1

Royalty EBITDA (US$ M) at Various Gold Prices2

Royalty Value DriversAuRico

Royalties

Asset Stage

Geographic Location

Core Asset of Operator

High-Quality Operator

Precious Metals

Mine Life

Cost Profile

Scale of Production

Exploration Upside

0 5 10 15 20 25

Kemess East(3)

Kemess UG(3)

Stawell

Eagle River

Hemlo

Fosterville

Young-Davidson

Royalty Mineral Inventory (years)

P&P

M&I

Inferred

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

$1,000 $1,250 $1,500Stawell Eagle River Hemlo Fosterville YD

Acquisition Cost: AuRico Receives:

Kiska Metals Transaction Overview

14

Transaction presents a unique opportunity to add value to all sides of AuRico’s business

~C$9.6 million

~8.2 million shares

(~5.5% of current AMI shares

outstanding)

C$2 million

in cash

Existing Royalties

• All located within the Americas

• 4 in Canada, 1 in Alaska, 1 in Mexico

Wholly-Owned Projects

• With organic royalty potential

• Projects focused in British Columbia (including Kliyul located ~50km south of Kemess)

Cash and Marketable Securities

• Further strengthens AMI’s financial position

• Provides additional significant financial synergies going forward

6

6

~$5M

Announced definitive agreement to acquire Kiska Metals on December 22nd

Each Kiska share to be exchanged for ~0.0667 AuRico shares plus C$0.016 in cash

Subject to customary closing conditions including Kiska S/H approval; Expected closing Q1/17

Royalty Growth &

Diversification

Near KemessExploration

Upside

Strong Balance Sheet &

Synergies

0.68 0.10

2.81

0.26 0.26

3.56

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Royalties Cash Kemess U/G FeasStudy

Kemess East(consensus)

CorporateOutflow

Total

Net Asset Value per Share1

15

Significant Valuation Opportunity driven by:

1. Recognition of Kemess value / Kemess advancement / Kemess East update

2. Recognition of Kemess (embedded) royalty opportunity

3. Royalty multiple expansion / accretive deals

(C$/sh)

Royalty value at royalty co. P/NAV of 1.5x

Share Price

Undervalued…

16

Valuation vs. Developer Peers (C$M Mkt. Cap.)

P/NAV vs. Royalty Peers

Source: Peers per CIBC (February 13, 2017) – Analyst consensus

Very limited value being ascribed to Kemess considering royalty + cash NAV of ~C$120M (at 1x)

… If you ascribe no value to Kemess

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Lundin Gold Continental Seabridge Belo Sun Dalradian Victoria Polymet NGEx Sabina AuRico Metals

2016 Return38%180%

-4%

172%48% 250% -8%

85% 34% 68%

2.0 x

1.6 x1.4 x 1.4 x 1.3 x

1.5 x 1.5 x

0.0 x

0.5 x

1.0 x

1.5 x

2.0 x

2.5 x

Franco-Nevada Royal Gold Silver Wheaton Sandstorm Gold Osisko Royalties Average AMI (Royalties +Cash only)

17

APPENDICES

18

Reserves & Resources

Classification QuantityGrade Contained Metal

Gold (g/t) Copper (%) Silver (g/t) Gold (koz) Copper (klbs) Silver (koz)Proven and Probable

Proven - - - - - - -

Probable 107,381 0.54 0.27 1.99 1,868 629,595 6,878

Total P&P 107,381 0.54 0.27 1.99 1,868 629,595 6,878

Measured - - - - - - -

Indicated 246,400 0.42 0.22 1.75 3,328 1,195,300 13,866

Total M&I 246,400 0.42 0.22 1.75 3,328 1,195,300 13,866

Inferred

Total Inferred 21,600 0.40 0.22 1.70 277 104,700 1,179

Kemess Underground

Kemess East

Classification QuantityGrade Contained Metal

Gold (g/t) Copper (%) Silver (g/t) Gold (koz) Copper (klbs) Silver (koz)

Indicatedpotassic strong 67,200 0.60 0.43 2.06 1,292 640,000 4,457

potassic moderate 40,000 0.27 0.32 1.81 352 286,000 2,336

potassic weak 5,100 0.19 0.22 1.45 31 24,000 238

phyllic + propylitic 800 0.20 0.21 1.40 5 4,000 36

Indicated - Total 113,100 0.46 0.38 1.94 1,680 954,000 7,066

Inferred

potassic strong 15,200 0.51 0.41 2.05 249 137,000 1,003

potassic moderate 41,900 0.26 0.34 1.91 353 311,000 2,579

potassic weak 6,000 0.17 0.20 1.42 32 27,000 274

phyllic + propylitic 700 0.24 0.21 1.42 6 3,000 33

Total Inferred 63,800 0.31 0.34 1.90 640 478,000 3,889

M&I Resources are inclusive of reserves

19

Select Caving Comparables

2016E Cash Cost (Co-Product) Positioning

KUG in top

quartile(2)

Northparkes

Cadia EastNew Afton

“While all mining projects have residual technical uncertainties, the KUG Project is considered to be relatively low risk for a caving project in terms of key mining-related risks including production ramp-up, drawpointstability, subsidence and mudrush.” - SRK Consulting

OperationTonnes

(Mt)Au (g/t) Cu (%)

Kemess UG 107 0.54 0.27

New Afton 62 0.62 0.82

Northparkes 102 0.26 0.60

Cadia East 1,500 0.47 0.27

Proven & Probable Reserve Comparison1

Operating Cost Benchmarking

20

(C$/Tonne)New Afton Costs

(Actuals per 2015 43-101)(1)

New Afton Scale-Adjusted

Costs (2)

Kemess UG Costs(per 2016 43-101)

Mining 6.59 5.34 5.39

Processing 9.46 6.54 5.95

Site G&A 2.97 1.70 2.93

Total 19.02 13.58 14.27

• Kemess UG mining cost estimate compares well to existing block cave in British Columbia after adjusting for scale of the operation

• Kemess UG processing costs are based on actual costs of operating the Kemess Mill, which ceased operations in 2011, updated for current consumables pricing

• Kemess UG G&A costs are higher by $1 per tonne due to location, and the need to incur additional flight and camp costs

1) New Afton’s actual costs for 2014 are provided in table 21-2 of the New Afton NI 43-101 Technical Report dated March 23, 20152) Scale-Adjusted cost calculated by applying assumption that 40% of mining costs, 65% of processing costs, and 90% of G&A costs

would remain constant if capacity was increased from 2014 actual throughput of 13,130 TPD to Kemess design capacity of 25,000 TPD

Kemess: Low Capital Intensity

21

• Potential to add additional low-cost ounces at KUG and Kemess East

Source: Canaccord Genuity (March 23, 2016).

22

Producing Royalty Portfolio

Young-Davidson

FostervilleHemlo-

WilliamsEagle River

Royalty 1.5% NSR 2% NSR 0.25% NSR 0.5% NSR

LocationOntario, Canada

Victoria, Australia

Ontario, Canada Ontario, Canada

Operator Alamos GoldNewmarket Gold

Barrick GoldWesdome Gold Mines

Asset OverviewUnderground mine

Underground mine

Underground and Open Pit mine

Underground mine

2017E Production 200-210 Koz 140-145Koz Not available 45 – 49Koz

Reserves and Resources

P&P: 3,823KozM&I: 1,499KozInferred:321Koz

P&P: 388Koz M&I: 1,878KozInferred: 665Koz

P&P: 917KozM&I: 1,451KozInferred: 306Koz

P&P: 300KozInferred: 170Koz

Commentary

17+ years reserve life (among longest in Canada); UG Ramp-up ongoing

Increased 2016 production guidance; 3 consecutive years of record production; Ongoing exploration

Increased 2016 production guidance; Hasbeen producing for 30+ years (24Moz) with good reserve replacement

Significant upsidefrom continued exploration of identified ore zones (incl. 300 zone); Continuous production since 1995 (>1Moz)

23

Royalty Portfolio Growth

Wholly-owned assets with potential to create royalties include: • Kemess, Kemess East, Kliyul*, Chuchi*, Copper Joe*, Williams*, Grizzly*, Redton* and Hilltop*

* Assets to be acquired as part of Kiska Metals transaction which is expected to close in March 2017

Asset Date Acquired Primary Metals Location NSR Rate Operator Notes

Boulevard* Mar-17 Gold Yukon 1.00%Independence

GoldAdjacent to Goldcorp’s Coffee project

Cumobabi* Mar-17 Copper Mexico 0.50% Evrim Resources Under option to First Majestic Silver

East Timmins* Mar-17 Gold Ontario 0.50% Kirkland LakeDisputed, arrears payments of >$1m

claimed

GJ Dec-16 Gold/Copper British Columbia 0.98%Skeena

ResourcesPEA expected in Q2/17

GJ Northern Block Dec-16 Gold/Copper British Columbia 0.49%Skeena

ResourcesPEA expected in Q2/17

Goodpaster* Mar-17 Gold Alaska 1.00%Millrock

ResourcesEligible for advanced royalty payments

Hemlo – David Bell Sep-15 Gold Ontario 1.50% Barrick Gold Historic operation; satellite deposit

Leviathan Since inception Gold Australia 1.00% Kirkland Lake Exploration stage

Mt. Dunn* Mar-17 Copper/Gold British Columbia 2.00%Metallis

ResourcesLocated in BC’s Golden Triangle

RDN* Mar-17 Gold British Columbia 1.33% Aben Resources Located in BC’s Golden Triangle

Red Lake & Madsen area Dec-16 Gold Ontario 1.00% Frontline Gold Exploration stage

Stawell Since inception Gold Australia 1.00% Kirkland LakeCare & Maintenance; contained resources

+300k oz

Endnotes

24

Slide 4 – Recent Developments – 1) AuE calculated on basis of $1,250/oz Au and $2.75/lb CuSlide 5 – Major Shareholders

2) Per Bloomberg, Sedi, and company filingsSlide 7 - Kemess Overview: AuE ounces calculated on the basis of $1,250/oz Au and $2.75/lb CuSlide 11 - Kemess East

1) AuE calculation assumes Au price of $1,250/oz and Cu price of $2.75/ozSlide 13 - Royalty Portfolio Overview:

1) Reserves and resources per most recent resource updates from asset owners; Assumes annual production levels for YD, Fosterville, Hemlo, Eagle River, Kemess UG and East, and Stawell of 200Koz, 115Koz, 200Koz, 50Koz, 140Koz, and 30Koz respectively and recoveries of 90%, 88%, 95%, 95%, 90%, and 90% respectively

2) Annual production assumptions per mid-point of guidance; For Kemess UG, the copper price is being adjusted up/down by the same percentage, i.e. the parallel copper price assumptions for the gold price range of $1,100 - $1,600/oz is $2.54, $2.77, $3.00, $3.23, $3.46, $3.69

Slide 15 – 1) NAV per Share – Royalties, Kemess East and Corporate Outflow per analyst consensus; Kemess per FS (Mar. 23, 2016) at Consensus pricingSlide 18 – Kemess East Resource Estimate as of January 13, 2017

NSR cut-off value of C$17.3/t was used to define indicated and inferred resources within a reasonable prospects for economic extraction solid; see Figure 1.

NSR calculation assumed US$3.20/lb copper, US$1,275/oz gold and US$21.0/oz silver prices; and C$/US$ exchange rate of 0.76.

NSR calculation assumed metallurgical recoveries of 91% copper, 72% gold and 65% silver; as well as a 22% copper grade for concentrate. Molybdenum was excluded from the NSR calculation.

Details of the Sample Preparation and Quality Assurance and Quality Control are presented in AuRico Metals’ November 8, 2016 press release reporting on the results of the Company’s 2016 drill program.

Resources were generated from 81 holes drilled at Kemess East in 2006, 2007, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.

Exploration activities at the Kemess East deposit have been conducted under the supervision of Wade Barnes, PGeo, Kemess Project Geologist, for AuRico Metals. Mr. Barnes is a “Qualified Person” as defined by NI 43-101.

Mineral Resources were prepared under the supervision of Marek Nowak, SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. Mr. Nowak is a “Qualified Person” as defined by NI 43-101.

Slide 19 - Select Caving Comparables1) Proven and Probable Reserves shown as of December 31, 20152) KUG average total cash cost in commercial production