Source: http://digital.ontarioreports.ca/ontarioreports/20181012?pg=106
Timestamp: 2018-12-12 19:47:50
Document Index: 116525327

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 33', 'art. 33', 'art. 33', 'art. 33', 'art. 33', 'art. 33', 'art. 33']

an award or make an “additional award”; and ( ii) their request falls within the continuing jurisdiction of the beth din under the Model Law and the language of the arbitration agreement.
( i) First argument: Correcting or interpreting the Award
[62] The respondents invoke art. 33 of the Model Law, which permits a party to apply to a tribunal, within 30 days of receipt of an award, to “correct in the award any errors in computation, any clerical or typographical errors or any errors of similar nature” (art. 33(1)(a)); “give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award”(art. 33(1)(b)); or “make an additional award as to claims presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted from the award” (art. 33(3)). All such requests require notice to the other party. An interpretation can only be requested if so agreed by the parties.
[63] The application judge did not identify which provisions of the Model Law, if any, he applied to reach his conclusion that Mr. Lipszyc’s intention “to pursue further issues related to the subject matter arbitrated” (para. 12) meant the Award was not “binding”. However, contrary to the submission of the respondents, art. 33 did not offer a route to reach that conclusion.
[64] The respondents submit the dispute about whether the Award was denominated in Canadian or American dollars would fall within art. 33(1)(b) as a request for the arbitral tribunal to give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the Award. Whether it would or not need not be decided on this appeal. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellants unequivocally acknowledged, for all purposes, that the Award is denominated in Canadian dollars. As a result, the currency of the Award is not in dispute. No interpretation from the arbitral tribunal is required.
[65] The respondents next submit that their intention to seek from the arbitral tribunal a reduction in the Award by the amount Mr. Lipszck has “wasted responding to Mr. Popack’s failed court proceedings” would fall within art. 33(1)(a) — a correction — or 33(3) — an additional award. As a result, the application judge did not err in concluding the Award was not binding in the face of Mr. Lipszck’s stated intention.
[66] I am not persuaded by that submission. Born, at pp. 3126-
27, described the narrow and limited scope of those provisions as
The Model Law’s provisions regarding corrections reflect the prevailing
approach towards corrections in most jurisdictions — essentially, as a neces-
sary evil that is tolerated, but not encouraged, and narrowly regulated. Nota-
bly, corrections are only available within a very limited time period (for both
requesting and making a correction) following notification of the award and