At the time the parties entered into the arbitration agreement, Mr. Popack resided in New York State and Mr. Lipszyc lived
 In the arbitration agreement, the parties agreed that the
beth din was a tribunal subject to the ICAA.
 The rest of the appellants are corporations controlled by
Mr. Popack, or individuals aligned in interest. The respondent
Sara Lipszyc is the spouse of Moshe Lipszyc.
 Under the arbitration agreement, the arbitral panel was
free to choose the appropriate procedures by which to conduct the
arbitration, no record was to be kept of the evidence or the
submissions, and no reasons for decision were required from
 Following an eight-week arbitration, held between January 2011 and March 2013 in Toronto, the arbitral tribunal issued
an award, styled a “Rabbinical Court Ruling”, dated August 15,
2013 (the “Award”). The Award described the appellants as
“Party A” and the respondents as “Party B”. The Award stated:
[T]he following Rabbincal Court Ruling was issued by us:
1) The funds escrowed with the Rabbincal Court [ i.e., the sum of
$440,000] shall be returned to Party A.
2) Party B shall pay Party A the sum of $400,000, whereby the parties
are released from each other.
 Mr. Popack thereupon brought an application under art. 34
of the Model Law to set aside the Award on the ground that the
panel had breached the procedure agreed upon by the parties by
holding an ex parte meeting with a rabbi who initially had been
appointed to arbitrate the parties’ dispute.
 Justice Matheson found that although the ex parte meeting
breached the agreed upon procedure, providing a basis to set
aside the Award, she would exercise her discretion under art.
34(2)(a)( iv) of the Model Law to refuse to set aside the Award.
She dismissed Mr. Popack’s application:  O.J. No. 2790,
2015 ONSC 3460 (S.C.J.).
 Mr. Popack appealed. By a decision dated February 18,
2016, this court dismissed Mr. Popack’s appeal: (2016), 129 O.R.
(3d) 321,  O.J. No. 857, 2016 ONCA 135. Mr. Popack paid
all costs of the set aside proceedings ordered by the Ontario
 On April 11, 2016, appellants’ counsel wrote to the
respondents’ counsel stating: “[N]ow that the setting aside litigation has been finally concluded, and the costs issue now resolved,
we would appreciate prompt payment of the beth din’s award”
(italics in original).