To the extent this passage suggests that Mr. Lipszyc was
entitled to take steps to appeal the Award, the application judge
made a palpable and overriding error in interpreting the arbitration agreement, which specifically precluded any right of appeal
from the Award.
 The application judge referred [at para. 12] to Mr.
Lipszyc’s expression of his intention to take further steps “within
the three months permitted following the release of the Court of
Appeal reasons”. The application judge did not explain to what
three-month period he was referring. The arbitration agreement
contained no provision entitling a party to take steps against the
Award within a three-month period.
 If the application judge was referring to the three-month
period to initiate set aside proceedings under art. 34(3) of the
Model Law, then the application judge committed a palpable
and overriding error in finding such recourse was available to
Mr. Lipszyc. It clearly was not. Recourse against an award under
art. 34 is only available where a party seeks to set aside the
award. Mr. Lipszyc expressed no intention to do so.
B. The correction or interpretation of the Award
 Consideration of the application judge’s second and third
reasons requires a review of the provisions of the Model Law dealing with the correction or interpretation of awards and the termination of arbitration proceedings.
 In concluding that the Award was “not yet binding” on the
parties, the application judge relied not only on Mr. Lipszyc’s
intention “to pursue further issues related to the subject matter
arbitrated” (para. 12), but also on statements issued by the arbi-
tral tribunal. He wrote, at para. 13 of his reasons:
My conclusion that the communication by the arbitral tribunal or here, the
Beth Din that the sum of $400,000.00 was to be paid by Moshe Lipszyc to
Joseph Popack is not yet binding relies on the fact the Beth Din has released
statements on two subsequent occasions, September 18, 2016 and June 7,
2017. On September 18, 2016 the Beth Din stated its willingness to consider
additional issues. On June 7, 2017 the Beth Din stayed the award until
Joseph Popack appears before it. Both statements are an indication that the
arbitration process the parties committed to is not yet complete. As a result
enforcement proceedings are premature. The Beth Din is not yet at the stage
of being functus officio.
 The respondents contend that the application judge’s conclusion was reasonably supported by the Model Law and the
language of the arbitration agreement. They advance two
main arguments: ( i) the respondents’ request that the tribunal
consider new issues falls within the procedure under art. 33
of the Model Law enabling a tribunal to correct or interpret