Respondents’ counsel replied by letter dated April 22,
[Y]our client should already be aware that my client will be asking the
Beth Din to reduce the award by the amount he has wasted responding to
Mr. Popack’s failed court proceedings, including all related, uncompensated
costs and damages. This matter is, as I understand it, currently before the
Beth Din. Consequently, I will leave this to be dealt with between the rabbinical lawyers.
 On June 24, 2016, the appellants commenced this application under arts. 35 and 36 of the Model Law seeking an order recognizing and enforcing the Award and requiring the respondents
to pay them the Canadian dollar equivalent of US$400,000.
 In responding to the application, Mr. Lipszyc deposed that
his claim for costs and damages, referred to in his counsel’s April
22, 2016 letter, would exceed $400,000. He took the position
the Award was denominated in Canadian, not American, dollars.
Mr. Lipszyc understood that the beth din was willing to address
these issues only if and when Mr. Popack attended before it,
which he refused to do.
 On September 18, 2016, the beth din wrote to the parties
in respect of its Award, stating:
The $400,000.00 Dollars award issued pertained to business transactions that
[were] transacted in Canadian currency.
At no time during the proceedings did any of the parties raise the issue of
distinguishing between United Sates Dollars and Canadian Dollars. However,
as a matter of standard practice, claims asserted regarding business dealings
transacted in Canadian funds result in awards that are calculated in Canadian Funds.
Accordingly, should any of the parties have claims and/or proofs that relate to
the currency issue and for that matter any other claims that the parties wish
to be resolved by the Rabbincal Court, please contact the Court Clerk, to
schedule a hearing before the Rabbincal Court.
 The beth din wrote the parties a further letter dated June
7, 2017, which stated:
The Bais Din has ordered that the [Award] is stayed until Popack comes back
to the Bais Din for a hearing to determine Lipszyc’s claim, that Popack continuously breached the Arbitration Agreement, and what are the consequences for breaching the Arbitration Agreement.
III. The Reasons of the Application Judge
 The application judge heard the application to recognize
the Award at the same time as a motion by the respondents to
stay recognition of the Award.