No it wasn't. "CCP 170.6" refers to section 170.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. CCP 170.6 is a law that allows a party to a lawsuit to have the case reassigned to a different judicial officer based on alleged prejudice or bias but without having to produce any evidence of such. It has nothing to do with the parties consenting to a commissioner hearing the case.
If you're asking whether a party may refuse to stipulate to a commissioner and then use CCP 170.6 to challenge the judge, the answer is yes.
In small claims court, it likely matters little or not at all, but I suppose it might matter in some circumstances.
A commissioner certainly can refer a matter for criminal prosecution, but judicial officers rarely do so. If you want something investigated by the police or the district attorney, contact them.
Parties consenting to a commissioner hearing a case need to sign a consent form. No form is needed to decline to stipulate to the use of a commissioner.
CRC 10.700(b) says, "The primary role of subordinate judicial officers is to perform subordinate judicial duties. However, a presiding judge may assign a subordinate judicial officer to sit as a temporary judge where lawful, if the presiding judge determines that, because of a shortage of judges, it is necessary for the effective administration of justice." That has nothing at all to do with a commissioner's ability or lack thereof to refer a matter to the district attorney for possible criminal action.

