What is the test for cross-examining in a sexual assault case?

In Regina v. J.K., [1997] O.J. No. 1559 (S.C.) Hill J. stated the following with respect to the failure to cross-examine at paragraph 70: A failure to cross-examine a witness, for example, the complainant, on matters material to the case may result in the assignment of diminished weight to subsequent evidence. As a general rule, where a party seed to impeach the credibility of a witness by independent or extrinsic evidence, the witness should be given notice of that intention, ordinarily through cross-examination on the relevant point. The rule accords with fairness to the witness and in turn to the parties. On important evidentiary points, it is unsatisfactory to be left with an absence of an explanation by a witness as to subject matter first raised after the witness has completed his/her testimony. In this case, the complainant was not cross-examined as to matters raised in the accused's testimony, for example, the extent of the agreement between the parties as to the second cleaning assignment at the Lakeshore Road apartment, and, the state of the unwashed dishes ad the angry outburst of the accused toward the complainant regarding her failure to clean the dirty dishes at the restaurant on July 27th, 1994.