the meaning of art. 33 of the Model Law. It is a request to adjudicate a new issue.
 Even if it is a new issue, the respondents submit that the
language of the arbitration agreement supports the application
judge’s conclusion that the arbitral tribunal was not functus officio and the Award therefore was not binding.
 The arbitration agreement provides: “In the event that
after an award is made a dispute between the parties arises as to
the interpretation of the award, compliance of the parties, or if
a party motions for reargument due to their claim of a judicial
error or new evidence etc. the parties agree that the arbitrators
shall have jurisdiction on the matters to the extent permitted by
law” (emphasis added). The respondents contend that since the
beth din indicated its willingness to entertain Lipszyc’s new
issue about post-Award costs, it was exercising its jurisdiction
within this language of the arbitration agreement, with the
result the Award was not binding.
 I make no comment on whether, under the arbitration
agreement, the beth din would have jurisdiction to consider
Lipszyc’s request for costs incurred in the Ontario court proceedings following issuance of the Award. That is a matter for the
tribunal to decide. However, in regard to an application for
the recognition and enforcement of an award, arts. 35-36 of the
Model Law make it clear that it is up to the competent court to
determine whether to recognize and enforce an award, including
determining whether the award is “binding” on the parties. The
final determination of any issue that may be raised under art. 36,
including whether the award is “binding”, rests with the court,
not the arbitral tribunal: Dalimpex Ltd. v. Janicki (2003), 64 O.R.
(3d) 737,  O.J. No. 2094 (C.A.), at para. 47.
 On the facts of this case, the potential jurisdiction of the
beth din to entertain a new issue about post-Award events does
not affect the binding nature of the Award. The Award is framed
as a final one. The arbitration agreement did not permit any
review or appeal from the Award. Mr. Popack’s set aside proceeding under art. 34 is at an end. Mr. Lipszyc’s request for post-Award costs does not fall within the categories of matters covered
by art. 33 of the Model Law. The Award therefore is “binding” for
the purposes of arts. 35 and 36 of the Model Law and should be
recognized and enforced.
 That conclusion is not affected by the beth din’s June 7,
2017 statement that the Award is stayed. Under art. 36(1)(a)( v) of
the Model Law, recognition or enforcement may be refused only if
the award has been “suspended by a court of the country in
which, or under the law of which, that award was made”. No such