12 [35] Frequently, but not universally, judges adopt a managerial stance by commanding the process they will follow (compare “cl osed” rat her than “ open” mediation). Some judges send a letter to the parties in advance to tell them what the process will be, what materials must be provided, and what time lines must be complied with. [36] A spin on the JDR process in Alberta, usually stated to be voluntarily undertaken and non-binding (leaving the parties in control of the decision whether to settle or not) is the phenomenon of the “bi nding JDR.” A binding J DR is much like an arbitration, but without the protections afforded by arbitration statutes. The parties voluntarily agree in advance of the JDR to be bound by the judge’s  opinion on the issues. It has been known, however, for a judge to require the parties to agree to be bound and give up the right to appeal as a condition of holding a JDR. [37] As evidenced by the wide variety of JDR styles, judges differ considerably in their understandings and conceptions of the JDR role. The wide variation in practice is attributable in part to the fact that neither Rules of Court nor Practice Notes provide for JDR. In the early days, the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench i ssued a province-wide Guideline for the conduct of judicial mini-trials, but that was prior to the expansion of JDR styles. Currently, no standardized Guidelines govern JDR practices in Alberta. The Edmonton judges (one of Alberta’ s two major population centres) have worked on a JDR protocol but its terms are not accepted by judges in other centres in the province. Until recently, the process for booking a JDR (and selecting the judge who will conduct it) also differed from one centre to another. [38] Although no firm models of JDR have been established, certain designations tend to describe processes that share a core of features in common. Justice J.A. Agrios describes three such classifications in his Handbook on Judicial Dispute Resolution: judicial mini-trials, settlement conferences and early neutral evaluation (a non-binding judicial opinion given prior to discoveries).⁵² His descriptions are reproduced in Appendix B to this paper.⁵³ [39] Because the rules of court and practice notes do not identify JDR, knowledge about JDR is uneven. Lawyers who spend a lot of time litigating may be familiar with