The ICAA states that two international instruments concerning international commercial arbitration have the force
of law in Ontario: ( i) the Convention on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, adopted by the United
Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration in
New York on June 10, 1958 (the “Convention”); and ( ii) the
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration,
adopted by the United Nations Commission on International
Trade Law on June 21, 1985, as amended on July 7, 2006 (the
“Model Law”). The Supreme Court of Canada has described the
Model Law as a codification of “best practices”: Yugraneft Corp. v.
Rexx Management Corp.,  1 S.C.R. 649,  S.C.J. No. 19,
2010 SCC 19, at paras. 10-11.
 In August 2013, the appellants obtained an international
commercial arbitration award against the respondents. It was in
an amount significantly lower than the appellants had sought in
the arbitration. The appellants applied to set aside the award
under art. 34 of the Model Law on the basis that the arbitrators
had followed an improper procedure. In February 2016, this court
affirmed the dismissal of the appellants’ set aside application.
 The appellants thereupon applied under arts. 35 and 36 of
the Model Law for the recognition and enforcement of the award.
 The application judge dismissed the application, holding
that the award was not yet binding on the parties because the
respondents were seeking to raise further issues before the arbitral panel and the panel had expressed its willingness to consider
the further issues.
 The appellants appeal. I would allow the appeal. The application judge erred in law in interpreting the recognition and
enforcement provisions of the Model Law and made palpable and
overriding errors in applying the Model Law to the circumstances
of this case.
II. The Events Concerning the Arbitration
 The appellant Joseph Popack and the respondent Moshe
Lipszyc jointly invested in commercial real estate in the Greater
Toronto Area. In 2005, disputes arose between them.
 After disagreeing for several years about how to resolve
their differences, they submitted their disputes to arbitration
before the beth din (or bais din) of Mechon L’Hoyroa (the “beth
din”), a rabbinical court in New York, pursuant to an agreement
to submit to arbitration dated November 10, 2010, as amended by
an addendum dated January 11, 2011 (collectively, the “