26 APPENDIX B: THREE JDR FORMS Reproduced from the Honourable John A. Agrios, Court of Queen’ s Bench of Alberta,  A Handbook on Judicial Dispute Resolution for Canadian Lawyers, with additional commentary by Janice A. Agrios, available at http://www.cba.org/alberta/PDF/JDR%20Handbook.pdf. Basic Approaches: Models of JDR I have constructed two models of JDR conferences and a third model for the future. The two current models are not mutually exclusive and my current personal practice is to, in a fashion, use both. But I digress – the models are: 1. The Alberta Mini Trial In the literature, you will find two very good discussions on what I call the Alberta Mini Trial. As Justice Belzil has pointed out, having returned from a North Americawide conference on JDR, the terminology in this area is all over the map. What Americans call a mini trial is quite different from our version, so these comments relate to only an Alberta mini trial. The Alberta Law Reform Institute in August 1993 published a discussion paper “The Judicial Mini Trial”, which is very accurate. The former Chief Justice, Kenneth Moore, did an equally good job in a discussion paper reproduced by C.C.H. Your librarian should be able to find these if you get really interested. The  Alberta Mini Trial is really a summary hearing where  all the essential facts are  principally agreed and a judge provides a non -binding  opinion as to what likely would happen in a form al trial. It is usually held in a conference room rather than in a courtroom. All parties are present, including the clients. In advance, an Agreed Statement of Facts, briefs, expert reports and authorities (tabbed and highlighted) have been exchanged and provided to the presiding judge. Usually the issues have been agreed to in advance. Both the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s lawyers are given an  opportunity  to present their positions in a summary fashion. Some judges prefer to let them introduce their cases and make their comments. I prefer to outline the pertinent facts and the issues as I see them. I then make specific directions to the lawyers as to the points I want dealt with. The parties are given an opportunity to address the judge if they so wish. In the traditional model, the judge then provides a non -binding  opinion as to the judgment they would render if the matter went to trial. Many commentators think that it is quite wise to provide short but considered criteria for the  non-binding opinion, making reference to specific cases if this is appropriate. The Alberta mini trial is to be distinguished from the formal summary trial process as set out in the Alberta Rules of Court. At this point any number of things can happen. Some lawyers thank the judge and politely ask that he or she excuse themselves and they will continue the discussion between the lawyers and the parties. Some judges leave the meeting voluntarily to permit the parties to discuss the non-binding opinion with the comment that if they can be of further help, call, and they will return to the conference room. Other judges  stay and try to see  if, based on the non-binding  opinion, a settlement can be  reached. Some lawyers will immediately ask the  judge  if they can caucus to