8 possibility of settlement or the use of extra-judicial procedures to resolve the dispute.”³⁴ Needless to say, as a matter of practice, the “height ened emphasis on the judicial production of settlements” had beg un much earlier.³⁵ Before long (and as so often happens), Canadian jurisdictions and, I daresay, jurisdictions elsewhere in the English common law world, followed suit. [25] The historical connection may explain the tendency toward procedural compulsion when courts become involved in ADR. The pre-trial conference opens up the exercise of court authority to bring the parties together. Where requested, or on their own initiative, judges now hold conferences with the litigants (pre-trial, case management, settlement) at any stage of the litigation. The promotion of settlement is a component of such conferences. During the conference, the judge may suggest to the parties that they try an ADR process or the judge may use ADR techniques in an effort to resolve the litigation by party agreement achieved then and there. Rules in some jurisdictions specifically recognize settlement as the purpose of a conference through separate designation as a “se ttlement conference” o r by making settlement the primary purpose of a pre-trial conference. [26] “Settl ement conference” is one  term used to identify a separately scheduled meeting with a judge that has the goal of resolving the dispute, or issues in the dispute, through agreement between parties. Other terms include “ju dicial dispute resolution,” “judic ial mini-trial” or “ear  ly neutral evaluation.”  In the words of one judge, the terminology is “all o ver the map.”³⁶ The terms are intended to signal the use of different ADR processes; however, the terms and practice associated with the terms vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. [27] The adoption of ADR processes by judges, or the use of JDR for “judic ial dispute resolution” a s it has become known in Alberta, is a fascinating development and one which merits careful attention. The popularity of JDR is spreading in Canada and, I daresay, in other common law jurisdictions as well. Judges offer their JDR services at the front-end of litigation (at the close of pleadings),³⁷ at the back-end of litigation (in a final effort to facilitate settlement before the parties go to trial), and any time in between. Judges offer their JDR services in trial courts having “inferior” (meaning less than full) jurisdiction (courts handling, e.g., small claims, family matters), in trial courts having “sup erior” (m eaning comprehensive inherent)