14 Landerkin and Pirie go a step further to suggest that the settlement and adjudicative roles might live together in the trial context:⁶¹ There may even be scope to view JDR, in much the way ADR is now seen, as less separate from the actual adjudicative process. Just as the gap between ADR and the courts has been bridged, JDR may also be understood as an expression of the judiciary’s continuing commitment to justice, both inside and outside the formal trial. Judicial interventions in the trial process of one sort or the other to encourage just, speedy and inexpensive results could fall under the JDR definitional umbrella. [44] This version of JDR best captures the direction Alberta’s Provincial C ourt (a trial court with less than full jurisdiction) seems to be heading in its handling of family matters. In that court, proceedings commence with a judicial conference in which the judge explores settlement possibilities, may use ADR skills to mediate a settlement, or if the parties fail to reach agreement, manage the proceeding through to trial. All that needs to be added is the authority of the same judge to hear the case formally and adjudicate the result. [45] The “om nipotent judge” v ersion of JDR requires parties and their counsel to place tremendous faith in the ability of the judge to run the litigation and bring about resolution. They must give over their full (perhaps, blind) trust to the judge’s ADR or process skills as well as the judge’s adj udicative wisdom based on a sound understanding of the substantive law. The “o mnipotent judge”  version of JDR constitutes the ultimate co-option by the civil justice system of ADR. Not only is prediction of the substantive result difficult; prediction of the process leading to the result is confounded. 4.  Growth in JDR popularity Like ADR, JDR (by any definition) has quickly gained popularity. JDR is now an integral part of dispute resolution in the Alberta civil justice system . It is available in a wide variety of circumstances and is generally popular with lawyers and litigants. Factors that count among the reasons for this popularity include: • judges are skilled at analyzing and interpreting legal issues