Can a party who improperly affixes a seal on a signed document rely on an unaltered copy of the same document later rely on another executed copy?

In Girvan v. Longdo, N.B.C.A., 15th September 1966 (unreported), unauthorized affixing of seals was held to invalidate the executed copy of a deed in the possession of the party whose solicitor had altered it, but an executed copy left in the possession of another signatory was admitted in evidence, this executed copy never having been sealed or submitted to any other unauthorized alteration. The case shows clearly that unauthorized application of a seal will invalidate a document not expressed to be made under seal. But insofar as an unaltered executed copy of the same document was admitted the case turns, I think, on special and unusual facts. Unless the rule is one of a purely formal and arbitrary character — which does not seem to be the case in its modern application — I do not think that a party who has altered an executed copy of a document in a material way can, in a normal case, later be allowed to rely on another unaltered executed copy. (c) Conclusion