The respondents opposed the application to enforce on the
basis the Award had not yet become “binding” on the parties
within the meaning of art. 36(1)(a)( v) of the Model Law and
art. V(1)(e) of the Convention.
 The application judge accepted the respondents’ position.
He identified three reasons why the Award was not “binding” on
the parties: ( i) he disagreed with Mr. Popack that at the time of
his application to enforce there was an absence of any pending
proceeding to appeal the award; ( ii) he found that Mr. Lipszyc had
expressed an intention “to pursue further issues related to the
subject matter arbitrated” (para. 12); and ( iii) the two post-Award
statements from the beth din indicated that the arbitration process was not yet complete and the arbitral tribunal was not
functus officio: at para. 13.
 The application judge dismissed both the appellants’ application for recognition and the respondents’ motion to stay recognition of the Award.
IV. Positions of the Parties
 Mr. Popack submits the application judge erred in finding
that the Award had not yet become binding on the parties within
the meaning of art. 36(1)(a)( v) of the Model Law. In making that
finding, the application judge committed three errors: ( i) he
ignored the mandatory rules in arts. 32 and 33 of the Model
Law concerning the termination of arbitral proceedings; ( ii) he
improperly deferred to the beth din’s view about the nature
of the Award when, under the Model Law, it is the courts who
determine whether an award is binding; and ( iii) he failed to recognize that the matters raised by Mr. Lipszyc following this
court’s 2016 order were new issues, which did not affect the binding nature of the Award.
 The respondents submit the application judge reasonably
concluded that the Award was not yet binding because after the
release of this court’s 2016 decision it was apparent both sides
were asking the tribunal for an interpretation of the currency in
which the Award was denominated and to decide the post-Award
 The respondents contend an award cannot be binding
when it is ambiguous and the tribunal has not yet declared the
proceedings terminated. A party’s request for costs or clarification of the currency of an award should be treated in the same