Short answer. Yes. Section 2 lets the court, on motion of either party or on its own initiative, order a reference to a commissioner without consent when trial requires examining a long account, when an accounting is needed before or to carry out a judgment, or when a factual question arises outside the pleadings.

What the law says

When the parties do not consent, the court may, upon the application of either or of its own motion, direct a reference to a commissioner in the following cases: (a) When the trial of an issue of fact requires the examination of a long account on either side, in which case the commissioner may be directed to hear and report upon the whole issue or any specific question involved therein; (b) When the taking of an account is necessary for the information of the court before judgment, or for carrying a judgment or order into effect

Rule 32, Section 2 — Reference ordered on motion. Read the full provision →

Consent is not required for these situations

Unlike Section 1's consensual referral, Section 2 lets the court act even over a party's objection, either on motion or motu proprio, for specific categories where a commissioner is especially useful. This departure from Section 1's consent requirement is deliberately narrow; the court cannot invoke this provision simply because a reference would be convenient, since the authority is confined to the specific categories the section itself lists, not a general power to refer any dispute over a party's objection.

The long-account scenario

Where trial of a factual issue would require examining a long account on either side, the court can direct the commissioner to hear and report on the whole issue or on a specific question within it. A party who objects to this kind of reference is bound by the commissioner's fact-finding process the same way as a party who consented to it; objecting to the reference itself does not preserve a separate right to relitigate the long account before the judge from scratch once the commissioner's report comes in.

The accounting-for-judgment scenarios

A reference can also be ordered when taking an account is necessary either for the court's own information before rendering judgment, or to carry a judgment or order into effect. This ground binds the reference to accounting needs that actually serve the judgment itself; a party cannot invoke it to send unrelated factual disputes to a commissioner simply because some accounting happens to be part of the larger case, since the accounting must be what the court needs for judgment or enforcement specifically.

The catch-all for factual questions

Beyond accounts, any question of fact arising outside the pleadings — on motion or otherwise, at any stage of the case — can likewise be referred, giving the court a flexible tool whenever fact-finding would otherwise bog down the proceedings. This catch-all still requires that the factual question genuinely fall outside what the pleadings already frame; it does not let a party route the core, pleaded disputes of the case to a commissioner just by labeling them factual, since the whole point of this ground is questions the pleadings did not already anticipate.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.