▁found , ▁a ▁non - im partial ▁judge ▁can ▁hear ▁a ▁case ▁when ▁there ▁is ▁no ▁im partial ▁judge ▁available ▁as ▁an ▁alternative . ▁ ▁As ▁L amer ▁wrote , ▁" The ▁law ▁recogn izes ▁that ▁in ▁some ▁situations ▁a ▁judge ▁who ▁is ▁not ▁im partial ▁and ▁independent ▁is ▁prefer able ▁to ▁no ▁judge ▁at ▁all ." ▁ ▁L amer ▁then ▁held ▁this ▁doctrine ▁went ▁back ▁to ▁ 1 4 3 0 , ▁when ▁jud ges ▁considered ▁a ▁challenge ▁against ▁themselves . ▁ ▁This ▁was ▁allowed ▁since ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁court ▁besides ▁their ▁own ▁that ▁could ▁hear ▁the ▁case . ▁ ▁L amer ▁also ▁concluded ▁the ▁doctrine ▁was ▁used , ▁al beit ▁not ▁over t ly , ▁in ▁Be a ure g ard ▁v . ▁Canada ▁( 1 9 8 6 ), ▁since ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁had ▁to ▁consider ▁its ▁own ▁independence , ▁as ▁well ▁as ▁that ▁of ▁other ▁Canadian ▁courts . ▁ ▁However , ▁the ▁Court ▁in ▁ 1 9 9 8 ▁c ited ▁La ws ▁v ▁Australian ▁Broadcast ing ▁Trib unal , ▁a ▁decision ▁by ▁the ▁High ▁Court ▁of ▁Australia , ▁to ▁say ▁the ▁doctrine ▁was ▁limited . ▁ ▁It ▁should ▁not ▁be ▁used ▁where ▁it ▁would ▁lead ▁to ▁considerable ▁in just ice , ▁and ▁it ▁should ▁not ▁be ▁used ▁more ▁than ▁necessity ▁dict ates . ▁ ▁If ▁these ▁conditions ▁are ▁not ▁followed , ▁L amer ▁said , ▁the ▁doctrine ▁would ▁" gra v ely ▁und erm ine " ▁section ▁ 1 1 ( d ). ▁ ▁In ▁all , ▁L