The plaintiff applies for certification pursuant to The Class Actions Act on behalf of himself and the other passengers of an international flight from the Dominican Republic to Regina. The flight was delayed for about 1.5 hours at the Dominican Republic airport as a result of several mechanical difficulties. The claim is with respect to alleged negligence, unlawful confinement and breach of contract.HELD: The applicant has failed to establish the first criteria as set out in s. 6(a) of the Act. The application for certification is dismissed on that basis. 1) The court accepts that all of the defendants are governed by the provisions of the Montreal Convention of 1999. The wording of Article 29 of that agreement is clear. Any claims for damages of a passenger of an international flight can only be brought within the ambit of the Montreal Convention of 1999. The court reviewed the cases and found that the plaintiff's claims outside the ambit of the Montreal Convention of 1999 in negligence, breach of contract, unlawful confinement and punitive damages do not disclose a cause of action. 2) The sole exclusive remedy available to passengers is set out in Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention of 1999. A strict liability regime has been set up with a cap of damages where a passenger sustains a 'bodily injury' as a result of an injury that occurs in the course of embarking or disembarking. It is settled law that for a passenger to have access to Article 17(1), the individual must have suffered a bodily injury as opposed to mere mental anguish. It has not been established that any bodily injury has been sustained by any of the passengers on Flight 361. It is plain and obvious that the claim does not raise a reasonable cause of action.Corrigendum received dated July 20, 2006 and added to fulltext.