What is the test for credibility in an assault case?

There are significant disagreements between the parties on the facts, how the facts are to be interpreted, and the legal consequences that may flow from them. To resolve these disagreements, I have made findings of credibility. I have applied the principles for assessing credibility established in Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BCCA): The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence, cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal demeanour of the particular witness carries conviction of the truth. The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions. (p. 357)

I have adopted the methodology set out in Bradshaw v. Stenner, [2010] BCSC 1398 [Bradshaw]: [...] first consider the testimony of a witness on a ‘stand alone’ basis, followed by an analysis of whether the witness’ story is inherently believable. Then, if the witness testimony has survived relatively intact, the testimony should be evaluated based upon the consistency with other witnesses and with documentary evidence. The testimony of non-party, disinterested witnesses may provide a reliable yardstick for comparison. Finally, the court should determine which version of events is the most consistent with the “preponderance of probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions” (para. 187).