an award or make an “additional award”; and ( ii) their request
falls within the continuing jurisdiction of the beth din under the
Model Law and the language of the arbitration agreement.
( i) First argument: Correcting or interpreting the Award
 The respondents invoke art. 33 of the Model Law, which
permits a party to apply to a tribunal, within 30 days of receipt of
an award, to “correct in the award any errors in computation, any
clerical or typographical errors or any errors of similar
nature” (art. 33(1)(a)); “give an interpretation of a specific point
or part of the award”(art. 33(1)(b)); or “make an additional award
as to claims presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted
from the award” (art. 33(3)). All such requests require notice to
the other party. An interpretation can only be requested if so
agreed by the parties.
 The application judge did not identify which provisions
of the Model Law, if any, he applied to reach his conclusion that
Mr. Lipszyc’s intention “to pursue further issues related to the
subject matter arbitrated” (para. 12) meant the Award was not
“binding”. However, contrary to the submission of the respondents, art. 33 did not offer a route to reach that conclusion.
 The respondents submit the dispute about whether the
Award was denominated in Canadian or American dollars would
fall within art. 33(1)(b) as a request for the arbitral tribunal to
give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the Award.
Whether it would or not need not be decided on this appeal.
At the hearing of the appeal, the appellants unequivocally
acknowledged, for all purposes, that the Award is denominated in
Canadian dollars. As a result, the currency of the Award is not in
dispute. No interpretation from the arbitral tribunal is required.
 The respondents next submit that their intention to seek
from the arbitral tribunal a reduction in the Award by the
amount Mr. Lipszck has “wasted responding to Mr. Popack’s
failed court proceedings” would fall within art. 33(1)(a) — a correction — or 33(3) — an additional award. As a result, the application judge did not err in concluding the Award was not binding
in the face of Mr. Lipszck’s stated intention.
 I am not persuaded by that submission. Born, at pp. 3126-
27, described the narrow and limited scope of those provisions as
The Model Law’s provisions regarding corrections reflect the prevailing
approach towards corrections in most jurisdictions — essentially, as a neces-
sary evil that is tolerated, but not encouraged, and narrowly regulated. Nota-
bly, corrections are only available within a very limited time period (for both
requesting and making a correction) following notification of the award and