Short answer. Quickly. Section 5 requires the commissioner, upon receiving the order of reference, to promptly set a time and place for the parties' or their counsel's first meeting, to be held within ten calendar days after the date of the order of reference, and to notify the parties or their counsel — unless the order provides otherwise.
What the law says
Upon receipt of the order of reference and unless otherwise provided therein, the commissioner shall forthwith set a time and place for the first meeting of the parties or their counsel to be held within ten calendar days after the date of the order of reference and shall notify the parties or their counsel.
Rule 32, Section 5 — Proceedings before commissioner. Read the full provision →
The ten-day deadline
The first meeting must be set for a date within ten calendar days after the order of reference issues, keeping the referred proceedings from stalling before they even begin. The rule also requires the commissioner to act forthwith upon receiving the order, meaning the scheduling task itself is not something the commissioner can sit on — the clock for setting the meeting starts running the moment the order of reference is received, not whenever the commissioner gets around to it.
Who bears responsibility for notice
The commissioner personally must notify the parties or their counsel of the time and place, rather than leaving it to the parties to coordinate the first meeting among themselves. That places the administrative burden of getting the case moving on the commissioner, not on the litigants — a party who never received notice has a basis to object to whatever happened at a meeting it did not know about.
The 'unless otherwise provided' qualifier
This ten-day, commissioner-initiated procedure applies unless the order of reference itself specifies a different arrangement, so the specific order should always be checked first. Because the referring court can displace the default schedule entirely, a commissioner who simply assumes the standard ten-day rule applies without reading the order of reference risks setting a meeting on the wrong timeline or through the wrong process altogether.
Why a fixed, short deadline matters here
A commissioner's role only exists because the court referred a matter to them, so an unexplained delay in getting parties to the table defeats the purpose of the referral in the first place. Fixing the deadline at ten calendar days, rather than leaving it open-ended, gives the parties a concrete benchmark for when to expect the process to start and a basis for raising the issue with the referring court if that benchmark is missed without explanation.
Related provisions
- Rule 32, Section 5 — Proceedings before commissioner
- Rule 32, Section 6 — Failure of parties to appear before commissioner