Govorcin Fisheries Ltd. v. Medanic Fisheries Ltd. et al.
 Even if I were to have admitted the statement, I would attach zero weight to
the statement in the ultimate reliability assessment. My reasons are largely in
respect to my assessment of the credibility of Denis Medanic and the improbability of
Bogomil, an experienced business person, agreeing to terms unknown and unseen.
I discuss this below.
 Further, I agree with the submissions of the plaintiff that at best, if such
statements had been made that they amounted only to an agreement to agree; or
subject to further discussion.
 I turn then to my assessment of Denis Medanic’s credibility generally and in
relation to his assertion of the oral management agreement.
Assessment of Credibility of Denis Medanic
 A helpful guide on the assessment of credibility has been set out by Dillon J.
in Bradshaw v. Stenner, 2010 BCSC 1398 aff’d 2012 BCCA 296:
 Credibility involves an assessment of the trustworthiness of a witness'
testimony based upon the veracity or sincerity of a witness and the accuracy
of the evidence that the witness provides (Raymond v. Bosanquet (Township)
(1919), 59 S.C.R. 452, 50 D.L.R. 560 (S.C.C.)). The art of assessment
involves examination of various factors such as the ability and opportunity to
observe events, the firmness of his memory, the ability to resist the influence
of interest to modify his recollection, whether the witness' evidence
harmonizes with independent evidence that has been accepted, whether the
witness changes his testimony during direct and cross-examination, whether
the witness' testimony seems unreasonable, impossible, or unlikely, whether
a witness has a motive to lie, and the demeanour of a witness generally
(Wallace v. Davis (1926), 31 O.W.N. 202 (Ont. H.C.); Farnya v. Chorny,
 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C.C.A.) [Farnya]; R. v. S.(R.D.),  3 S.C.R. 484
at para. 128 (S.C.C.)). Ultimately, the validity of the evidence depends on
whether the evidence is consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as
a whole and shown to be in existence at the time (Farnya at para. 356).
 It has been suggested that a methodology to adopt is to 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" (Overseas Investments