Second opinion] ,I am involved in a family law hearing in…

Thank you for your response.I have another question.
I am representing myself at a BC Family Law Hearing. My ex and I reached an agreement that our children would live 50-50 with both parents. My one daughter has done this but the other refuses despite the work of a large therapeutic team. My ex has been on a long campaign to discredit me through allegations of parental alienation rather than taking responsibility for his role in the estrangement. He is a psychiatrist and convinced an S211 psychologist that I am an alienator and personality disorder (IME later commissioned by my ex did not support PD dx). I have gone through the s.211 report in great detail and there are many biases and methodological flaws. The only problem is that I don't have an s.211 rebuttal report. I contacted an s.211 psychologist and he felt that a rebuttal report would be of limited utility because he was restricted to the materials that were given to the author. In my case, the s.211 author refused to take collateral information that would have demonstrated that my ex was lying. He suggested that a second opinion would be more useful... However my ex did not agree with seeking a second opinion.Here is my question: Can I call the s.211 psychologist to the hearing to cross examine her? If so, how do I go about doing this?Thank you!A bit more info...the hearing is being called by my ex to ask for an order change to our agreement. He is now seeking sole custody of the children citing parental alienation as a factor. The s.211 also found blame with him as well as he was abusive before he left the marriage. The s.211 psychologist did not feel that it was in the children's best interests to be separated from either parent. However she recommended that if my ex and daughter were not reunited in a timely manner that he should consider seeking sole custody. So...it's very important that I discredit her. I am PhD educated in psychology myself and have written my own report critique, but I am concerned that the court will give this little weight since it is not completed by a expert even though it is based on fact and science.