BC prison nurse who had relationship with inmate on the hook for $50,000

A BC prison nurse who engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate and planned to rent out her condo to him when he got out has had her licence suspended for two years, been fined $10,000, and left on the hook for $40,000 of legal fees.

According to an Oct. 30 BC College of Nurses and Midwives decision, registered nurse Julia Filtness admitted that she intended to rent her condo to the inmate but denied the two were ever in a romantic relationship.

However, the regulator’s disciplinary panel dismissed her argument, saying that while there was no evidence the couple had been intimate with each other, she did plan to be in the future.

The disciplinary panel found that the two had made comments to each other that went well beyond a personal or business relationship.

“The Panel finds that (Filtness) engaged in a sexual relationship with (the) inmate that involved remarks, behaviour and intended future conduct of a sexual nature,” the disciplinary panel said.

The panel said the comments weren’t isolated and showed that the nurse had given the inmate her phone number, messaged him on Facebook, met in person for a coffee and a walk, and agreed to rent him a property which she owned.

“The College submits that (Filtness’) conduct was egregious… (she) entered into a relationship with an incarcerated person that was personal, romantic and sexual, that she took calculated steps to conceal her professional misconduct, and that she engaged in months-long subterfuge to deceive her colleagues, her employer and her regulator,” the decision read.

The College called her behaviour “disgraceful, dishonourable, and unbecoming of a member of the profession.”

The decision said Filtness, who had been nursing for 15 years and worked in a prison for eight years, met the inmate at an unnamed jail in 2017.

Little is said about the relationship between the two while in prison, but it changed from being purely professional.

The prison warden was tipped off about their relationship by another prisoner, and authorities began an investigation.

Much of the evidence comes from phone calls prison guards listened to between the nurse and the unnamed inmate. 

Filtness denied that the voice recorded in the phone calls was hers, but the disciplinary panel said it was “inconceivable” that it wasn’t her on the phone.

In one phone call, the two talked about having sex, and she said she’d never slept with an inmate before.

One allegation said the couple met up in a hotel and had sex, although the panel ruled there was no evidence to say this was true.

After being told she was under investigation, Filtness resigned. In 2023, she didn’t renew her nursing licence.

The decision said Filtness arranged to rent a condo to the inmate and made steps to remove herself from the transaction by using a property management service. It doesn’t appear that the inmate ever moved in after being released on parole, and shortly afterwards was sent back to prison.

“(Filtness) demonstrated an element of deceit by knowingly violating the Correctional Service of Canada Code of Discipline and concealing that conduct from her employer and work colleagues. Her conduct shows a lack of respect and disregard for the vulnerability of (the) inmate as an incarcerated person and a person on parole in the community, her colleagues’ safety and well-being, and for the Correctional Service of Canada’s overall goal of rehabilitation of inmates,” the decision read.

The regulator began disciplinary action against the former nurse in 2021, and found that she’d committed professional misconduct August 2024. Since then the nurse has filed numerous applications accusing the regulator of an abuse of process and has argued the case should be dropped. The regulator had issued more than a dozen decisions involving the case.

Among several arguments, Filtness claimed her charter or rights were violated, and because of this she should be given a break in the fine and legal fees, but the regulator dismissed her argument.

Filtness also argued the case should be dropped because of the numerous delays. 

The regulator didn’t buy it, instead pointing the finger at Filtness.

“The amount of time that these proceedings took was caused in large part by tactical choices that (she) made in conducting her defence. While she is entitled to make strategic decisions about her case, she cannot object to the time it takes for the Panel and the College to deal with those strategic choices,” the disciplinary panel said.

The College of Nurses and Midwives argued the nurse should have her licence suspended for two years, and pay a $25,000 fine, plus its $40,000 legal bill.

Filtenss argued the fine should be far less.

“The misconduct found by the Panel was extremely out-of-character for me,” she said in the decision. “In all of my years of practice, I had never before had a prospective landlord-tenant relationship with a patient or former patient, and I had never before communicated with a patient or former patient outside of the workplace. I understand that I should have informed my employer, especially after (the) inmate unexpectedly returned to the institution.”

The regulator said she should have known better.

“This is not a circumstance in which an inadvertent and isolated error may be excused due to inexperience or attributable to actions that were not misconduct,” the panel said. “The (nurse’s)  experience and position enabled her to carry out and conceal the misconduct through three-way calling, removing her name from the property lease, engaging an intermediary to deliver the lease documents to (the) inmate at the prison, taking time off work to coincide with (the) inmate’s release date, and taking steps to conceal the true nature of her relationship with (him).”

The College argued that her failure to acknowledge her misconduct during the disciplinary hearing is a significant aggravating factor that favours a serious penalty.

The disciplinary panel said that Filtenss only acknowledged the least serious aspects of her misconduct.

Ultimately, the panel issued a $10,000 fine and ordered the nurse to pay $40,280 in legal fees. She has two years to pay. 

She will also be able to reapply for her nursing license in two years, if the fine is paid.