The main body of the McGill Guide provides instructions and examples on how to create footnotes for various types of legal materials. The General Rules section of the McGill Guide describes the difference between footnotes, bibliographies, and in-text references.
When writing papers and many types of legal documents, footnotes should be used. If you need a refresher on when to footnote, where to include the footnote numbers, when to combine two or more pieces of information in one footnote, the content of footnotes, etc., refer to the General Rules section of the McGill Guide.
When preparing a factum or memorandum, in-text references are used.
In-Text References
Include the full citation to the case immediately after the relevant text, in parentheses. The first time you create a citation, use the rules from the McGill Guide. If you plan to refer to this case later, provide the reader with a short form in brackets (e.g., [Rohani]). This makes later references much more succinct (e.g., (Rohani at 68) or (Clearbrook at para 32)). You should use ibid to refer to the immediately preceding reference. Use supra when referring to a prior, but not immediately prior, reference.
Here is a sample passage, illustrating how to provide in-text references (modified from the McGill Guide, page E-5):
Besides the requirement of an “actionable wrong”, punitive damages will only be awarded “where the defendant’s misconduct is so malicious ... it offends the court’s sense of decency” (Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 SCR 1130 at para 196, 186 NR 1, Cory J [Hill]). Such behavior has included defamation (ibid), failure to provide assistance (Robitaille v Vancouver Hockey Club (1981), 124 DLR (3d) 228 (BCCA)), and obnoxious behavior by an insurance firm (Whitten v Pilot Insurance, 2002 SCC 18 [Whitten]). Punitive damages should rarely be used in a criminal matter (ibid at para 69). Only the wrongdoing defendant can be responsible for punitive damages (Hill at para 195).
Note: No short form for the Robitaille case is needed because it will not be referred to again. However, a short form for Whitten is provided because it will be referred to later.
Here is another sample passage, illustrating how to provide in-text references (modified from: http://www.law.ubc.ca/files/pdf/current/jd/lrw/2010/LRWSampleMemo.pdf):
The leading case in B.C. on the general test for the existence of a partnership is that of Hayes v British Columbia Television Broadcasting System Ltd (1992), 74 BCLR (2d) 120 (CA) [Hayes]. In determining whether a partnership has formed, the meaning of the words “carrying on business in common with a view of profit” should be considered (ibid).
The parties must intend a partnership to form (Sproule v McConnell, [1925] 1 DLR 982 (Sask CA)). The analysis used to discern the intention of the parties is two-pronged. A court will first review the agreement between the parties, then will look to the conduct of the parties (ibid). Because there is no express contract in the present circumstances, a court would immediately turn to the second branch of the analysis, which was described as follows:
[It] requires the court to enquire into whether the conduct of the parties during the currency of their joint project constituted a partnership relationship notwithstanding their contrary intention and the provisions of their agreement (Hayes at 123).
The parties in Hayes did not meet the “business in common with a view to profit” test. While the parties all expected to obtain something of value from the enterprise in that case, the Court observed that it was:
not in the view of either that what would be obtained would be the profit of the business being carried on in common. … Whether either party realized a profit turned upon that party’s costs and that party’s revenue from that party’s market area (at 126).
As cited in Hughes v Page (1998), 77 ACWS (3d) 432 (BCSC) [Hughes], it is the majority decision in Hayes which sets down the test used today in B.C. The emphasis placed on profit sharing in Hayes is not unique to that case. In B.C., see also Hughes and Jenks v McCrory, [1998] BCJ No 995 (QL) (SC).
