Short answer. Yes, you can agree to it, and no, the commissioner isn't limited to one profession. Section 1 lets the court, on the parties' written consent, refer any or all issues to a commissioner agreed upon by the parties or appointed by the court, and 'commissioner' under the Rules includes a referee, an auditor, and an examiner.
What the law says
By written consent of both parties, the court may order any or all of the issues in a case to be referred to a commissioner to be agreed upon by the parties or to be appointed by the court. As used in these Rules, the word "commissioner" includes a referee, an auditor and an examiner.
Rule 32, Section 1 — Reference by consent. Read the full provision →
Consent unlocks a broad referral power
With written consent from both parties, the court can send any or all of the issues in the case to a commissioner, rather than resolving them directly itself. This consent requirement matters because it means a court cannot unilaterally offload a case onto a commissioner over a party's objection; the referral only happens where both sides have actually agreed to it in writing, giving the parties real control over whether their dispute is handled this way at all. Nothing in the section limits which kinds of issues can be referred this way, so long as both parties have consented to sending them to a commissioner in writing.
Who counts as a 'commissioner'
The term is defined broadly to include a referee, an auditor, and an examiner, so the role can be filled by whichever kind of specialist suits the issue being referred — an auditor for a long-account dispute, for example, or an examiner for a technical question requiring specialized expertise the judge may not personally have. This flexible definition lets the parties and the court match the commissioner's background to whatever kind of issue actually needs resolving in the case at hand. Section 1 does not itself set qualifications for who may serve in these roles, leaving that judgment to the parties' agreement or the court's own discretion in selecting a suitable person.
Party-agreed or court-appointed
The commissioner can be someone the parties themselves agree upon, or someone the court appoints instead, giving flexibility depending on whether the parties can settle on a choice. Where the parties cannot agree on a specific individual, the court's own appointment power keeps the referral from stalling simply because the parties could not settle on the same name, ensuring the case still moves forward toward resolution of the referred issues. Either way, the commissioner ultimately reports back findings the court can adopt, modify, or reject before entering judgment on the referred issues.