13 its availability and how to obtain a JDR, but it remains obscure to many members of the bar. Lawyers preparing for a pre-trial or case management conference with a judge may not share the judge’s v iew of the purpose of the meeting so may not prepare appropriately. Separate scheduling helps to distinguish the judge’s rol e in managing litigation from the judge’s ro le in facilitating settlement. [40] One further note. In Canada, some jurisdictions offer JDR at the appellate court level. Quebec is the leading example of a province that has adopted this practice. There the process is called “jud icial mediation.”⁵⁴ Appendix C sets out the characteristics, as described by the Honourable J.J. Michel Robert, Chief Justice of Quebec. Alberta’s Court  of Appeal also offers this option. [41] JDRs in general, and the binding JDR in particular, invite conceptually difficult questions about the role being performed and about the relationship between adjudication, JDR and resolution of the dispute by the party agreement.⁵⁵ 3.  Omnipotent judge [42] The next step in the evolution of JDR in Alberta is the merging of the judicial roles of managing litigation, facilitating settlement and adjudicating disputes. This is the height in co-option of ADR by the courts, a kind of “ju dge as all things to all people” st ance.⁵⁶ [43] This role for the judge appears to be favoured by Landerkin and Pirie. They understand JDR as embracing the non-adjudicative procedures used by judges to assist settlements within our public justice system.”⁵⁷ To them, “JDR would incl ude judges acting as third party intervenors, i.e. mediators, and participating in case management, settlement or pre-trial conferences, mini-trials and the like.”⁵⁸ To them, given their references to judicial history, “the  modern emergence of judicial dispute resolution is not an entirely new or surprising phenomenon.”⁵⁹ The “non-adjudi cative tasks supporting settlement are what underpin JDR’s meaning”:⁶⁰ There is the case management role which includes judicial decisions on interlocutory issues. There is the obvious facilitator or mediator role that judges play in settlement-oriented pre-trial conferences or in chambers meetings. There is the hybrid role of mediator/fact finder/advisor that judges can take on in a mini-trial where parties present a summary of the case to the judge, who may then render an advisory opinion to assist negotiations among the principals.