10 with the help of others. For a time in Canada, other acronyms were promoted: BDR for “be tter dispute resolution” or   IDR for “ innovative dispute resolution.”⁴² The modern court offers a range of dispute resolution options from which, in theory, a method appropriate to the circumstances of the particular dispute is chosen. The shift in the understanding of ADR from a process alternative to litigation to a process alternative to court adjudication has given rise to the redefinition of the acronym ADR to mean “ap propriate dispute resolution.” D efined as “a ppropriate dispute resolution,” ADR options would range from out-of-court negotiation to in-court adjudication. Today, ADR has flourished to the point that some persons suggest dropping the adjective altogether and speaking simply of “disput e resolution” t o describe the modern range of dispute resolution methods and choices. C.  JDR Strands: an Alberta Story [31] As has been seen, enthusiasm for ADR and the perceived need for greater management of litigation by judges had led judges to play a growing role in dispute resolution. Like ADR, the role of the judge in ADR, or JDR as it is labelled in Alberta, is continually evolving. In my second example, JDR has evolved in three stages: from a tightly-structured judicial mini-trial to a free-flowing settlement conference in which the judge utilizes mediative ADR techniques and, from there, to the concept of judge as omnipotent manager of litigation, facilitator of settlement and adjudicator of the dispute. 1.  Judicial mini-trial [32] Alberta’ s Court of Queen’s  Bench first offered JDR to litigants in Alberta in the late 1980s. Initially, the process took the form of a judicial mini-trial, described in 1992 as “an  expanded pre-trial settlement conference.”⁴³ In 1993,⁴⁴ the Alberta Law Reform Institute (ALRI) explained that the Alberta judicial mini-trial was modelled on a process that had been introduced in British Columbia⁴⁵ – a process which, in turn, had been developed from a dispute resolution process that had proven effective to resolve commercial disputes in the private sector.⁴⁶ In Alberta, the early mini-trial involved a structured presentation of the agreed facts and argument by counsel with parties present that concluded with the delivery by the judge of a non-binding opinion on the likely outcome were the case to proceed to trial. ALRI described the mini-trial as a discrete technique that may be used to produce a settlement, and observed that although a pre-trial conference may lead to a mini-trial, the mini-trial is not a