As the law also referred to "serious bodily harm," Cory consulted "The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary" and found that "serious" meant "substantial", so "serious bodily harm" means substantial damage to the victim's health. Cory concluded that this law would likely cover emotional damage, as the types of bodily harm covered by the law were not limited. The Supreme Court also decided that the new law was meant to guard against threats that terrorize people, and that the law had a significant goal of upholding an individual's freedom. "R v LeBlanc" (1989) was another case that found that terror was what was important and not whether the crime would actually occur.