Law - Legal Citation Guide

The two most common forms of references in legal writing are in-text references and footnotes. The main difference between them is that in-text references are usually included in the text itself while footnotes are given at the bottom of the page.

Generally, in-text references are used for memoranda and facta while footnotes are used for other legal writing.

Include the full citation to the case immediately after the relevant text. If you plan to refer to this case later, provide the reader with a short form in brackets. This makes later references much more succinct. 

Here is a sample passage, illustrating how to provide in-text references:

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 CarswellBC 216 (WL Can) (SC) [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).

Here is another sample, incorporating legislation and secondary sources, provided by Kim Nayyer, Librarian and Legal Research and Writing Instructor at the University of Victoria:

If this bill becomes law, the effect of the ninth item of the proposed new s 7.0.2(4) (“paragraph 9”) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, RSO 1990, c E.9 will be to give the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to fix prices of certain necessaries during a declared emergency. Although a constitutionality analysis of paragraph 9 must be comprehensive, it can encompass an evaluation of the power to fix prices.

The courts have considered price-fixing regimes with respect to matters within the province to fall under provincial jurisdiction pursuant to s 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Victoria, c 3, as legislation in relation to property and civil rights within the province. Patrick Monahan, Constitutional Law, 2d ed (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2002) lists price regulation among fields that are subject to exclusive provincial jurisdiction, so long as there is no relation to the matters within s 91 (at 313).

This was confirmed in Home Oil Distributors v British Columbia (Attorney General), [1940] SCR 444 (“Home Oil”). In Home Oil, the impugned legislation authorized the fixing of prices of coal or petroleum products from time to time. The legislation was held to be intra vires the province, even though it affected the activities of extra-provincial corporations doing business within the province.

Footnotes should be placed on the same page as their accompanying text. Footnote numbers are placed in superscript, usually at the end of the sentence. If you are referring to a word, place the footnote number directly after the word.

If you cite one source multiple times, use ibid or supra after the first citation rather than repeating the full citation.

Ibid is used when referring to the same source in the footnote immediately above. Ibid may be used after another ibid or after a supra.

Supra is used when referring to the same source in a footnote that is not immediately above.

Here is the first sample passage from the in-text references section above, illustrating how to provide the same references using footnotes.

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.¹ In determining whether a partnership has formed, the meaning of the words “carrying on business in common with a view of profit”² should be considered.

The parties must intend a partnership to form.³ 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.⁴ 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 inquire 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.⁵

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.⁶

As cited in Hughes v Page,⁷ 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.⁸

^` Hayes v British Columbia Television Broadcasting System Ltd (1992), 74 BCLR (2d) 120, [1993] 2 WWR 749 (CA) [Hayes].

² Ibid.

³ Sproule v McConnell, [1925] 1 DLR 982, [1925] 1 WWR 609 (Sask CA). 

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Hayes, supra note 1 at 12.

⁶ Hayes, supra note 1 at 18.

⁷ Hughes v Page (1998), 77 ACWS (3d) 432, 1998 CanLII 6580 (BCSC) [Hughes].

⁸ Jenks v McCrory, 1998 CanLII 4992 (BCSC).